Searches the Northwind Gear help center for policies, shipping, warranty, sizing, and how-to answers, so support replies use documented information instead of memory.
Full-text search of the Northwind Gear help center (policies, shipping, warranty, sizing). Call this for any policy or how-to question before answering from memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | A few keywords, e.g. 'return policy' or 'warranty'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context about what corpus is indexed and the intended pre-answer workflow, but says nothing about ranking, result limits, or what an empty result means. Adequate but with clear gaps for search 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?
Two sentences with zero waste; the resource and scope come first and the operational instruction follows. Nothing redundant with the name or title.
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?
For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the domain and the intended workflow, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the return-behavior details (result count, ranking, no-match handling) are missing, and those are minor for this complexity.
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% and the schema already gives format guidance via the example ('return policy', 'warranty'). The description adds no additional query syntax, keyword-vs-phrase, or length guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (full-text search) plus the exact resource (the Northwind Gear help center) and enumerates the content domains covered (policies, shipping, warranty, sizing). This makes it unmistakably distinct from the operational siblings such as get_order, track_shipment, and issue_refund.
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 says to call it for 'any policy or how-to question' and to do so 'before answering from memory', which is a clear usage trigger. It stops short of naming exclusions or pointing at a specific alternative for non-policy questions, so it is strong but not fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.