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 fuzzy search behavior, ranking, pagination (default 20, max 100, offset usage), and response fields (total, has_more). It lacks information on authorization or rate limits, but for a search tool, this is adequate and 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key aspects (fuzzy, ranked), and the second efficiently covers pagination and response details. Every word serves a purpose with no 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description partially compensates by mentioning response includes total and has_more. However, it does not describe the structure of each result item or provide complete examples. For a simple search with 4 parameters, it is moderately complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter details beyond what the schema already provides; it only adds general context about fuzzy search and pagination. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 search tools across connected MCPs.' It specifies the action (search) and the resource (tools), and the ranked results and pagination details further clarify its scope. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'agnt_watch' or 'auth_mcp' which have different purposes.

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 across MCPs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. While the context is clear, there is no direct guidance on when not to use it or mention of sibling tools.

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