search_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'searches across all loaded MCP servers' but does not mention whether it modifies state, requires specific permissions, or the effect of parameters like 'hydrateLazy'. Given the lack of annotations, more detail on side effects and behavior is needed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loading the usage condition and action. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of tool names, descriptions, or full details) despite the search function implying a return of matching tools. This gap leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect, making it incomplete.

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 schema has 50% description coverage, meaning two of four parameters lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information; it only mentions searching by name/description, which loosely relates to the 'query' parameter but does not clarify format or behavior. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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: searching across MCP servers for tools when the server is unknown. It includes the scope ('all loaded MCP servers') and the search criteria ('by name/description'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_servers' and 'get_tool_api'.

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 explicitly provides a usage condition ('USE WHEN you don't know which server has the tool you need'), guiding the agent on when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context signals and sibling names imply alternatives, making the guidance clear enough.

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