search_servers

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

The description describes a read-only search operation, but annotations set destructiveHint: true, creating a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral details (e.g., side effects, rate limits) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and structured with a WORKFLOW section. It is slightly verbose but earns its length by providing context.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains that results include server URLs and repository info for 'upstream_servers add command'. It could detail the return format more, but is largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context for the 'registry' parameter but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly specifies the action 'search' and the resource 'servers from known registries', and differentiates from siblings like 'list_registries' and 'upstream_servers' by stating it finds servers to add as upstreams.

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?

The description provides an explicit workflow: call 'list_registries' first, then use this tool with a registry ID. It also mentions results are ready for 'upstream_servers add command', giving clear context for when to use.

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