Search agent tools

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description is free to add behavior — ranked results (name match, then GitHub stars), inclusion of install commands, and the notable grok-bot constraint that only MCP servers with a public HTTPS endpoint are returned. That last detail is genuinely non-obvious and actionable.

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?

Three tight sentences: what is searched, how results are ranked/returned, and how to narrow with client. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does most of the work by naming ranking order and install commands in the results. Exact result fields and pagination behavior remain unspecified, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, with enum descriptions for type and client and defaults for limit, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the client enum actually filters on (grok-bot → only MCP servers with a public HTTPS endpoint), which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (the Plug and Ship index of MCP servers, agent skills, and coding-agent plugins), so the scope is unambiguous. It never names the siblings (list_best, trending, get_tool) or contrasts itself with them, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: keyword search across the index, with the client parameter for narrowing to a coding agent. It does not say when to reach for list_best, trending, or get_tool instead, so the alternative-routing guidance an agent needs is left to inference.

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