find_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are "bounded," hinting at a capped result set, but does not say how bounding works (default limit, pagination, max size), leaving the one genuinely useful trait underspecified.

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?

A single tight sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter tool, but structurally it is clean.

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?

Reply format need not be explained since an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, but with 0% parameter documentation, no usage guidance versus the 15 siblings, and an unexplained "bounded" claim, the definition is under-specified for a 5-param query tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions only filter and projection and says nothing about the two required parameters (database, collection) or the limit parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Find ... MongoDB documents") and names the mechanisms (filter, projection). However it gives no differentiation from the sibling aggregate_documents, which is the main competing read path.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to prefer this over aggregate_documents, hybrid_query, or query_sql, and no prerequisites. The reader must infer usage purely from the name.

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