search_accessibility_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors like 'fuzzy matching and content search,' but it does not mention safety characteristics (e.g., read-only nature), rate limits, or output format. The description adds some value but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds value—naming the repository, the topic, and the search behavior.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it searches, where it searches, and how matching works. It does not explain the exact return structure, but for a search tool the purpose and source are sufficiently clear to guide invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, each with descriptions. The tool description reinforces 'fuzzy matching and content search' which aligns with the query and includeContent parameters, but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema thoroughly documents parameters.

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 function: 'Search for relevant web accessibility articles from the e11y-mcp documentation repository.' It also specifies the purpose ('Find W3C WAI-ARIA patterns and accessibility implementation guidance') and distinguishes from siblings like fetch and list by focusing on search with fuzzy matching and content search.

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 context for when to use this tool (when searching for relevant articles with fuzzy matching and content search). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use fetch_accessibility_article or list_accessibility_articles instead. This is a minor gap.

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