GoMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior ('full-text matching', 'ranked by relevance') and return format ('titles and content snippets'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It adequately describes core behavior but misses some operational 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context on behavior and usage. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output schema by detailing return structure (e.g., pagination, error formats), leaving some gaps for a search tool.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax or limit usage further). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('search documents by keyword using full-text matching') and distinguishes it from its sibling 'search_semantic' by specifying keyword-based vs. semantic search. It also mentions what it returns ('matching documents ranked by relevance with titles and content snippets').

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you need to find documents containing specific words or phrases') and when not to ('For semantic meaning-based search, use search_semantic instead'), clearly differentiating it from the alternative sibling tool.

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