aria-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what types of content can be searched, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior, or whether this is a read-only 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-like 'Use for:' section. Both sentences earn their place by providing distinct information about the tool's function and appropriate use cases.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and good schema coverage for inputs, the description provides adequate context about when to use the tool. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention more about behavioral constraints like rate limits or result formatting.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents both parameters well. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value.

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 tool searches PubMed for biomedical literature, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_clinical_trials' tool, which likely searches a different database for clinical trial data rather than published literature.

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 'Use for:' section provides clear context about when to use this tool by listing specific biomedical research domains. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the sibling tool as an alternative for clinical trial searches.

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