pinescript-mcp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains that results are 'ranked by relevance,' returns 'previews' rather than full content, and includes 'get_section() call hints' for follow-up actions. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or exact matching behavior beyond case-insensitivity.

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 efficiently structured with three focused paragraphs: purpose, usage guidance with alternatives, and parameter/return details. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff—and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with ranking), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return behavior. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or pagination details, but the annotations and parameter explanations provide sufficient context for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'query' is described as an 'Exact string to search for (case-insensitive)' and 'max_results' as 'Maximum sections to return (default: 5)'. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Search Pine Script v6 documentation'), target resource ('documentation'), and output format ('return matching sections'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_doc, get_section, and list_sections by specifying search functionality with relevance ranking and previews rather than direct retrieval or listing.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Finds sections containing the query') and provides clear alternatives ('with get_section() call hints so you can read the full content'), directing users to get_section for detailed content. It also distinguishes from list_sections by focusing on search rather than enumeration.

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