Search across a Mudbase project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the purpose and optional scoping without stating that this is a read-only operation, how results are returned, whether match highlights/rankings are included, or any pagination/limit behavior beyond the schema. It leaves the agent guessing about the actual invocation outcome.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the primary function and the optional scoping feature. No filler or redundant wording, and the most important purpose is front-loaded.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the invocation surface is clear. But with no output schema and no annotations, the agent still lacks guidance on the return shape, the distinction from list_documents in practice, and any edge-case behavior. The description is minimally viable but leaves several practical holes.

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's phrase 'Optionally scope to specific collections or fields' minimally reinforces the existing `collections` and `fields` parameter descriptions but doesn't clarify the projectId/query/intent or how the optional parameters interact. It adds almost no semantic value over the schema.

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 ('search') and resource ('a Mudbase project's collections'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list/get/documents or collection tools. The phrase 'Full-text search' and the optional collection/field scoping clearly identify what this tool does.

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 use case is implied by 'Full-text search' — an agent can infer it is for text-based lookup across collections. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like mudbase_list_documents or give when-not conditions, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over a list tool.

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