Server has 8 tools with basic naming (verb_noun pattern) and descriptions present, but critical gaps undermine quality. All tools are READ_ONLY, which is good for safety. However, parameter descriptions are minimal or absent (e.g., search_evidence has 'query' with no format guidance; investigate_incident lacks context on what 'investigation query' means). Output schemas are not documented anywhere in the visible code, LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract structured data. No error handling guidance visible. Tool definitions appear to be inferred from FastMCP decorators rather than explicit schema registration, which caps individual tool scores at 50. The server delegates to Core APIs but provides no pagination, result limits, or field documentation. Descriptions average ~60 chars, below the 194-char baseline for A+ tools.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Example: get_readiness_report should return {project_id, coverage_percent, missing_evidence: [], suggested_questions: []}. This enables LLMs to plan multi-step workflows.
• Expand parameter descriptions to 50 - 150 chars with format/constraint hints. E.g., 'query: Search string (1 - 500 chars, supports AND/OR operators)' instead of just 'Search query string'.
• Add pagination to search_evidence: accept limit (1 - 100, default 20) and cursor parameters; return total_count and next_cursor in response.
• Implement error recovery guidance. When a project_id is invalid, return 'Project not found. Call list_projects() to see available projects.' instead of a bare 404.
• Add tool annotations (readOnlyHint=true for all tools) to signal to clients that these are safe, non-destructive operations.