FDEP MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't address important aspects like performance characteristics, result format, pagination behavior, or whether the search is case-sensitive. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a relatively simple search tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides the basic operation but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'function' in this system, what format results will be in, or how this tool relates to the many similar tools in the sibling list, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate this complex tool ecosystem.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'name pattern' which aligns with the 'pattern' parameter but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('functions') with the specific mechanism ('by name pattern'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_classes', 'search_modules', or 'search_types' which follow similar patterns for different resource types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_similar_functions', 'pattern_match_code', or other search-related siblings. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between similar tools in this extensive toolset.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.