Broadcom Support MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('list of relevant articles with titles, URLs, and snippets'), which is helpful, but does not cover other important aspects such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the search is paginated or limited in scope. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and return values, but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage guidelines. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description, but gaps in behavioral transparency and guidelines prevent a higher score.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so it adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides. However, with only 2 parameters and an output schema present, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately without requiring additional explanation in the description.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Broadcom Support knowledge base'), and specifies what it returns ('list of relevant articles with titles, URLs, and snippets'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'read_documentation', which likely serves a different function like reading specific articles rather than searching.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as its sibling 'read_documentation'. It mentions the tool's function but lacks explicit instructions on context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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