agent-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the fetch-by-id semantics, which is already clear from the schema and annotations.

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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler or repetition of annotations/schema. It earns a 5.

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?

This is a simple fetch-by-id tool with one documented parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema. The description covers what the tool retrieves and how to identify the item, so nothing critical is missing.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as an opaque id returned by search, and the description confirms this by saying 'opaque search result id.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource ('one KimchiSushi citation source or public community post') plus the method of selection ('by its opaque search result id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing/search tools and from get_post_with_comments, which targets posts with comments.

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?

It implicitly states the tool should be used with an opaque search result id, which strongly suggests a search-first workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the tool's scope (Korea/Japan, community/guide/citation pages) but does not disclose additional behaviors like response format or rate limits, so it contributes modest value beyond annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that states the purpose and scope without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 tool has no parameters, a clear output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient to understand its purpose and scope. The mention of 'community, guide, or citation-source pages' provides enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 ('route') and resource ('Korea/Japan question to KimchiSushi community, guide, or citation-source pages'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch or search. The title reinforces the 'get entrypoints' action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'Route a Korea/Japan question...' gives a clear use case: when the question is Korea/Japan-specific. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (search, fetch) implies this is the targeted entry-point router for that domain.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that only public posts and comments are returned, and that the post must be 'known' (exists). This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant content. Every word adds value.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and key constraints (public, by UUID). It does not describe error cases (e.g., not found), but this is not essential given the output schema and annotations.

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 schema provides only a required post_id string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by indicating that the parameter should be a UUID, adding semantic clarity not present in the 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 verb (fetch), resource (one known public KimchiSushi post and its public comments), and identifier (by UUID). It distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_posts (which lists multiple) and search (which queries by criteria).

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 when to use it: when you have a UUID and need a specific post with its comments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using search when the post_id is unknown or get_recent_posts for a list.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that posts are 'public' and that no keyword search is involved, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination or how sorting works beyond the schema enum. With strong annotations, this is acceptable but not highly informative.

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 a single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. It is concise, front-loaded, and has no wasted words.

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 that the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete for a simple read-only listing tool. It conveys the core purpose and scope, though parameter usage is left to inference from enums. The lack of explicit parameter documentation is a minor gap, but overall the tool is well-contextualized.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'category' parameters. The phrase 'recent or popular' only loosely relates to the 'sort' enum, but does not map 'popular' to the actual enum value 'hot'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Return' and clearly specifies the resource: 'recent or popular public KimchiSushi community posts'. It also explicitly excludes keyword search, distinguishing this tool from the sibling 'search' tool. This is a clear, well-scoped purpose.

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 phrase 'without a keyword search' provides a clear exclusion, indicating this tool is for browsing recent/popular public posts rather than performing keyword-based searches. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative 'search' tool, but the context is clear enough to guide when to use this tool.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool tests reachability, but it does not elaborate on what happens if unreachable or what the output represents. With annotations present, a score of 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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the action and subject.

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 health check tool with no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description provides sufficient context. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the empty input schema already fully describes the parameter surface.

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 function: checking whether an MCP-compatible client can reach KimchiSushi. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('KimchiSushi'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like fetch, search, or get_recent_posts, which serve different purposes.

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 conveys that this is a health/connectivity check, so the usage context is implied. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, such as 'use this before other calls to verify connectivity.'

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by emphasizing 'source-backed' results and the specific topical scope (Korea/Japan study, working-holiday, public community), which helps the agent set expectations about result content. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. It is concise with no redundant words, and every phrase earns its place by specifying the resource, the nature of the search ('source-backed'), and the topical coverage.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), has a rich output schema (not shown but known to exist), and annotations that cover safety and idempotency. The description sufficiently explains what the tool searches and the kind of information it returns, leaving no major gaps for an agent to misuse it. The existence of an output schema means return-value details need not be in the description.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter ('query' is described as a natural-language search query in Korean, Japanese, or English). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond this, but since schema coverage is complete, 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('KimchiSushi') with a clear scope: 'source-backed Korea/Japan study, working-holiday, or public community information.' This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like get_recent_posts or fetch, which clearly are for retrieving specific posts rather than searching across topics.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs to search for the specified types of information. It provides context by listing the information scope, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases. Since the sibling tools are distinct (e.g., get_post_with_comments for retrieving a specific post), the usage context is clear enough without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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