search_mcp_tutorials

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It explains the curated nature, parameter behavior, and return structure. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, a search tool is inherently non-destructive; the description is transparent enough.

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 well-structured with an opening sentence, then Args and Returns sections, and usage guidance. It is slightly verbose but all sentences are informative; front-loading the purpose is effective.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides full coverage: parameter details, return format, examples, and follow-up instruction. It also notes tutorial count and categories, making the tool's scope clear.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter's meaning, type, and example values (e.g., query examples, category and difficulty lists, default for lang and limit). This fully compensates for missing schema documentation.

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 searches 147+ MCP tutorials across install, configuration, comparison, and build guides. It provides specific verb and resource, and differentiates itself from siblings like 'get_tutorial_details' and 'search_qa_cases'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool with example queries ('how do I install X MCP', 'best MCPs for Cursor', etc.) and recommends following up with 'get_tutorial_details' for full content.

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