search_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds modest behavioral context by clarifying the search mechanism (keyword/category) and discovery purpose, but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or limit semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 simple discovery tool with 3 fully-documented parameters, no nested objects, and a complete read-only/idempotent annotation profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't hint at what a result set looks like, but the tool's purpose makes that largely self-evident.

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% — all three parameters (query, limit, category) are individually documented in the schema. The description reinforces that query and category are the two search dimensions, matching the schema, but adds little beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 available MCP tools') with the two search dimensions (keyword or category), plus the intent ('discover which tools are available for a task'). As a meta-tool searching the tool catalog itself, it is inherently distinct from all domain-specific siblings like get_devices or create_alert_rule.

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?

'Use this to discover which tools are available for a task' gives a clear context for when to invoke it: task-to-tool routing. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., when the tool name is already known, call it directly), but for a self-describing meta-search tool the guidance is adequate.

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