Search MCP error fixes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are matching fixes rather than full instructions, which is useful, but says nothing about ranking, pagination, or whether zero-result searches are common. Modest added value against a rich annotation set.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the routing hint to get_fix is placed at the end after the core purpose and input guidance. Nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (matching fixes) and where the full answer lives (get_fix), which is exactly what a search tool needs. Nothing required for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%: the schema already documents the error text format, the limit default/max, and client filtering. The description only echoes the error/client inputs at a high level, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Find step-by-step fixes for MCP errors') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling get_fix by scoping this tool to search-level results. An agent can tell it apart from search_servers, get_server, list_categories and get_fix without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete invocation context ('Paste the error message or describe the problem') and names the follow-up alternative with its condition ('use get_fix for the full steps'). It lacks an explicit when-not (e.g., 'use get_fix directly if you already have a fix id'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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