search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination defaults (default: 20, max: 100), offset usage, and response fields (total and has_more). It also mentions ranked results, giving a clear behavioral picture for a read-only search operation. It doesn't cover every edge case but is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential pagination and response details. Every sentence 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?

The description covers pagination and response metadata (total, has_more), which is helpful given no output schema. It doesn't specify the structure of individual result items, but for a search tool the agent can infer the general shape. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the description's mention of response fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly reaffirming pagination details already present. It doesn't introduce format or syntax specifics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: fuzzy searching tools across connected MCPs, with ranked results. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('tools across connected MCPs'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manage_mcps or execute_tool by focusing on discovery.

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 implies usage for finding tools and provides pagination guidance ('Use offset for next page'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear but no exclusions or sibling references are given.

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