Fed Speech MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search scope ('title and content') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and search scope. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain return values, result ordering, or potential limitations (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). With 2 parameters and no structured output guidance, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that the query searches 'title and content,' which doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Federal Reserve speeches by keyword. Searches in title and content.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Federal Reserve speeches'), and scope ('by keyword' with search fields). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_latest_speeches' or 'get_speeches_by_speaker' beyond the search functionality.

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 implies usage context through 'Search by keyword' and 'Searches in title and content,' suggesting this tool is for keyword-based searches rather than retrieval by other attributes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_speeches_by_speaker' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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