search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose mode semantics, that names mode returns name/description/category only, and that limit caps hits, but says nothing about read-only nature, whether the search spans all child servers, or truncation/ordering behavior.

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?

Four dense sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the default mode stated immediately after. Every sentence adds actionable detail.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description responsibly describes what each mode returns. It covers mode selection, result shape, and the roster alternative, leaving only search scope and truncation unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: names mode returns 'name/description/category only' (more than the schema's 'compact') and clarifies limit 'caps hits'. Mode and limit behavior are therefore understood without inspecting the schema.

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 and resource ('Search child MCP tools by keyword'), which clearly separates it from invoke_tool and the resource-oriented siblings. It never explicitly contrasts itself with search_resources, so sibling differentiation is implied by the word 'tools' rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance: default to mode=names, switch to mode=schema for a single tool or tight query, and call mcp_status for the roster. It provides an alternative (mcp_status) but no explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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