mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying the returned attributes (property address, bounty, status, checklist items, viewer/scout info). It does not disclose error behavior or authorization requirements, but for a read-only get-by-ID, the return content disclosure is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. It lists return fields without redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies what the tool does, what input it takes, and what information the response will include. No additional context is needed.

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 input schema already fully describes the single 'id' parameter with type and description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond 'by its ID,' so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'specific property verification mission by its ID.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing lookup by ID, whereas siblings cover stats, nearby, list, and search.

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 when you have a mission ID and need its details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_missions or search_missions. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, setting the safety baseline. The description adds value by disclosing specific returned metrics (total counts, status breakdown, average bounty). No other behavioral caveats are needed for a parameterless read-only tool.

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 two sentences. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second lists outputs and use case. Every word is purposeful, with no repetition of annotations or schema fields.

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?

For a simple, parameterless, read-only aggregation tool, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and its utility. With no output schema and zero parameters, there is no missing critical information.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is fully self-descriptive. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. The text adds contextual meaning about the aggregate nature beyond the empty schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('missions'), explicitly stating aggregate statistics. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on platform-wide aggregates rather than individual missions or searches.

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 gives a clear context ('useful for understanding platform activity') and implies this is the overarching dashboard tool. It doesn't explicitly exclude cases for sibling tools, but the aggregate nature makes the appropriate use case obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the core safety profile. The description adds little beyond that — it says 'Find' which aligns with read-only, but does not disclose additional behaviors like default filters or result sorting. It does not contradict the annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope in the first sentence. The second sentence adds practical context. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple nature of a geo-search tool and the rich schema (all parameters documented) plus annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not have an output schema, but the name and description make the return type (missions) clear. Slight ambiguity remains about result ordering or default status, but these are minor and not required for basic invocation.

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 every parameter (latitude, longitude, radiusKm, status) already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it provides no additional value beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is correct.

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 opens with 'Find property verification missions within a geographic radius,' using a specific verb ('find'), a clear resource ('property verification missions'), and a distinguishing scope (geographic radius). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_missions or search_missions, which are broader or text-based.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'useful for scouts looking for missions near their location or for finding missions in a specific area.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing pagination ('Returns paginated results') and sort order ('sorted by creation date, newest first'). This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand response behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('List...'), followed by behavioral details and usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Combining the annotations (read-only, idempotent), full schema documentation, and behavioral additions (paginated, sorted), the description is complete enough for this simple list tool. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the predictable nature of a paginated list, and no critical gaps are evident.

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?

All three parameters (limit, offset, status) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description only says 'optional filtering' generically, adding no new parameter details. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'List property verification missions with optional filtering.' The verb 'List' and resource 'property verification missions' are specific and differentiate from siblings like get_mission (single) and get_nearby_missions.

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 provides explicit context: 'Use this to browse available missions on the HomeVisto platform.' It tells the agent when to use the tool but does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, such as when search_missions or get_nearby_missions might be more appropriate.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already cover safety. The description adds search scope (title, description, address) and hints at location/requirement filtering, enriching context without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and key details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Covers purpose, search fields, and value proposition. Lacks return format or sorting details, but the absence of an output schema and presence of thorough annotations keeps this adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described (query, limit, status). Description overlaps with query field list but adds no new syntax or behavior beyond schema.

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 searches for missions by keyword across title, description, and address fields. It distinguishes from geospatial tools like get_nearby_missions but does not explicitly contrast with list_missions.

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?

Provides usage context: 'Useful for finding missions in specific locations or with specific requirements.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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