GoMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the ranking methodology ('ranked by meaning similarity') and the semantic matching approach, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with empty results - leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second explains the ranking methodology, and the third provides usage guidelines with explicit alternatives. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it does and when to use it) comes first.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the semantic matching approach, distinguishes from alternatives, and gives usage guidance. The main gap is the lack of output format information (since no output schema exists), but otherwise it's quite complete for this level of 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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter 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's purpose: 'Search documents using semantic embedding-based matching' specifies both the verb (search) and resource (documents), while 'Returns results ranked by meaning similarity rather than exact keyword match' distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_documents. This provides specific differentiation beyond just the tool name.

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: 'Use this when the user's intent matters more than exact wording' gives clear context, and 'For exact keyword matching, use search_documents instead' explicitly names the alternative tool. This gives the agent clear decision criteria for tool selection.

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