The server provides 6 well-structured tools with explicit JSON Schema definitions and clear descriptions. All tools have proper naming (verb-prefixed), descriptions between 54-196 characters, and documented input schemas. However, there are notable gaps: (1) Missing output schema documentation, while tools return structured responses, the response shape is not documented in tool definitions, forcing LLMs to infer response structure; (2) Parameter descriptions lack specificity about formats, ranges, and constraints, e.g., 'query' in discover_technologies has no guidance on max length, special characters, or matching behavior; (3) No error handling guidance, tools do not document failure modes or recovery paths; (4) Tool descriptions lack context about when to use each tool vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use search_symbols vs. get_documentation); (5) No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) despite all tools being read-only operations. All tools are well-named and have descriptions, placing this in the 'Fair' to 'Good' range, but missing documentation conventions cost points.

• Add explicit output schema documentation to all 6 tools. Example for discover_technologies: 'Returns {technologies: [{title, identifier, abstract, kind, url, platforms}], totalCount, hasMorePages}'
• Specify parameter constraints in descriptions: 'query (1-200 chars, supports wildcards * and ?)', 'pageSize (1-100, default 25)', 'path (symbol name or doc:// URI format)'
• Add readOnlyHint: true and idempotentHint: true annotations to all 6 tools in the inputSchema to signal safe caching and deduplication
• Document failure modes and recovery guidance: 'If technology not found, call discover_technologies() to list available frameworks' or 'If symbol path fails, try search_symbols() with a partial name'
• Add context to tool descriptions explaining when to use each: 'Use get_documentation for known symbol names; use search_symbols for exploration or partial matches.' 'Use choose_technology before calling search_symbols or get_documentation, it determines the scope.'
• Expose response structures in tool metadata or documentation so LLMs can parse results confidently
• Consider adding a validate_symbol tool or enriching search_symbols response with a 'confidence' field to signal exact vs. approximate matches