Five tools with reasonable naming (verb_noun pattern) and detailed descriptions (150-250 chars each). However, critical gaps: schemas are visible but parameter descriptions are inconsistent, some params lack type clarity or constraints. Output schemas are not documented. Error handling is absent from descriptions. The execute tools accept arbitrary JavaScript code, creating security and validation concerns not addressed in the tool definitions. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite clear risk profiles.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify the structure of search results (e.g., array of {name, path, description, parameters}), execution results (e.g., {success, output, error, staged_data_id}), and error responses.
• Add input validation and constraints to code parameters. Describe sandbox limits (execution timeout, memory cap, allowed APIs), forbidden patterns (e.g., no network calls outside whitelisted endpoints), and what happens if limits are exceeded.
• Include error recovery guidance in all tool descriptions. E.g., 'If no results found, try broadening the query or listing all endpoints in a category. If code times out, reduce dataset size or add pagination.'
• Add tool annotations: readOnlyHint=true for search tools, readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true for execute tools that modify state, idempotentHint=false for execute tools.
• Clarify the 'workspace' parameter: document its format (UUID? string?), how to create/list workspaces, and what auto-staging means. Link to workspace discovery tools if they exist.