MCP Embedding Storage Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching a vector database but doesn't describe what happens during search (e.g., similarity matching, ranking), what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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?

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, making it somewhat under-specified rather than optimally efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search operation that typically has behavioral nuances (ranking, thresholds, result format), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets returned, how results are ordered, or any limitations of the search. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'maxMatches') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 'Search for information in vector database' states a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('vector database'), but it's vague about what specific information is being searched. It distinguishes from the sibling 'save-memory' by being a search rather than save operation, but lacks specificity about the search scope or content type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied this is for searching stored information (contrasting with 'save-memory' for saving), there's no explicit context about use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. The description doesn't mention when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative approaches.

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