Mikensey MCP Server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable search operation. The description adds valuable context about what content is searched (podcast transcripts), what domains it covers (real estate, mortgage, proptech), and what the returns include (excerpts with episode info, guest name, quotes), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter overview with examples, and return value description - all in 6 sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and provides just enough detail without redundancy.

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 good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about content scope, use cases, and return format. The only minor gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description adequately describes what's returned. It could slightly improve by mentioning search limitations or result ordering, but it's 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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (query as search terms with length constraints, limit as maximum results with default and bounds). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing example queries and mentioning the default limit, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or advanced usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool searches across Mike DelPrete podcast transcripts for specific content types (topics, quotes, metrics, advice) and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for searching transcripts rather than analyzing, getting advice/benchmarks/episodes/frameworks, or listing episodes. The verb 'search' is specific and the resource 'Mike DelPrete podcast transcripts' is well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this tool to find what industry leaders have said about specific topics in real estate, mortgage, and proptech') and provides three concrete examples of search queries with their expected outcomes. This gives clear guidance on appropriate use cases versus the sibling tools which serve different purposes like analysis or retrieval of specific content types.

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