willow-mcp

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 'full-text search' which implies text-based querying, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves most behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses precise terminology. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, error conditions, or provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively. The minimal description leaves too many gaps given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description provides no information about what app_id, collection, query, or limit mean. It mentions 'collection' and implies 'query' through 'search', but doesn't explain their purpose, format, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 'Full-text search within a collection' clearly states the action (search) and target (a collection), using specific terminology. It distinguishes from siblings like store_get (retrieve specific item) and store_list (list all items), though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from knowledge_search or store_search_all.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose store_search over knowledge_search, store_search_all, or other search-related siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for use.

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