search_mcp_docs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the use of BM25 ranking with Porter stemming, which adds behavioral insight beyond a generic search. However, it omits any mention of destructive actions, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a read-only search tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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?

Concise two-sentence description. Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a brief technical detail. Every sentence serves a purpose with no waste.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects), the description adequately covers its purpose and key feature. It lacks details on the scope of documentation (e.g., which version), but given sibling tools, this is implicitly clear.

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 descriptive parameter definitions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for query and k. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'MCP protocol documentation'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fetch_mcp_doc' by implying this tool provides ranked results for searching, while the sibling likely fetches a specific document.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use search vs. fetch_mcp_doc, nor any conditions for using this tool. The description only mentions ranking behavior but does not set context for usage or alternatives.

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