find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it specifies the MongoDB operation type but doesn't mention pagination, performance implications, or error conditions. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read operation with good annotations and comprehensive schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema and with multiple sibling tools that perform similar collection operations, the description should provide more context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., 'filter' parameter references MongoDB syntax). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Run a find query') and target resource ('against a MongoDB collection'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'count' or 'aggregate' which also operate on MongoDB collections but serve different purposes.

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. With sibling tools like 'count' (for counting documents), 'aggregate' (for aggregation pipelines), and 'export' (for larger result sets), the agent receives no explicit or implicit direction about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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