search-tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's purpose (search/discovery) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or any other behavioral traits (e.g., no side effects, no data modification). The description adds minimal context beyond the immediate function.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information. It is optimally concise.

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 simplicity (search/discovery) and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at the output format (e.g., a list of tool names) to fully inform the agent, but overall it suffices.

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 does not add extra meaning beyond the parameter names and hints in the schema. It mentions 'natural language query' and 'categories' but these are already reflected in the 'query' and 'category' parameter descriptions. No new semantic value.

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 'Discover available dbt MCP tools by natural language query across dbt / quality / meta categories' clearly states the verb (discover), resource (tools), and scope (cross-category). It distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are specific operational tools like dbt-coverage or dq-failed-checks.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'call this first to find the right tool.' This tells the agent when to use it (before other tools) but does not specify when not to use it or name direct alternatives. The instruction is clear but lacks exclusionary context.

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