find

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the limit default ('profile's max_docs (100)') — a behavioral default invisible in the schema — plus the collation semantics. It still says nothing about error handling, max_time_ms behavior, or how database/connection defaults resolve.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then dense examples with no filler. The Turkish-collation digression is long but earns its space by documenting a genuinely non-obvious matching behavior; no sentence is padding.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the query-shaping parameters well but omits four parameters (skip, database, connection, max_time_ms) and says nothing about what a result set looks like or how pagination interacts with skip/limit.

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 coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It gives useful concrete forms for sort (both object and array-of-pairs syntax) and collation (workable locale/strength example), but leaves skip, database, connection, and max_time_ms entirely undocumented — about half the surface.

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?

Opens with a specific verb + resource ('Query documents') and immediately clarifies that filter/projection/sort are Extended JSON. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like aggregate, count_documents, or distinct, so an agent must infer that this is the plain-find path.

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 explains syntax but never states when to choose find over aggregate, count_documents, or distinct, nor any prerequisites. With 27 sibling tools in a MongoDB server, some routing guidance would materially help selection.

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