us-law-mcp

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

For a simple arithmetic function, 'Adds two numbers and returns the sum' fully discloses the behavior. There are no side effects, state changes, authentication requirements, or hidden behaviors to disclose, and no annotations are provided to contradict this.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and result with no wasted words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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, has a clear input schema, and no output schema needs explaining. The description sufficiently covers input semantics and the return value ('the sum'), giving an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 only provides names and types for parameters a and b with no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It states that the two numbers are added together, giving operational meaning to both parameters. Individual parameter mapping is unnecessary since addition is commutative and the parameters are unambiguous.

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 ('adds'), names the resource (two numbers), and states the result (sum). This clearly distinguishes it from the listed sibling tools echo and server_time, which perform unrelated operations.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusion conditions. However, the intended use is strongly implied by the operation, and the sibling tools are clearly unrelated, so an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Echoes the provided text back to the caller' transparently discloses the entire observable behavior: input is returned as-is, with no side effects or hidden transformations. Nothing meaningful is left undisclosed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loads the action and outcome. Every word earns its place for this trivial tool.

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's minimal complexity, one required string parameter, no output schema, and no nested structures, the description and schema together provide everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. There are no missing behavioral or contextual details.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'text' parameter ('Text to echo back'). The description adds no new parameter-level information, matching the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Echoes') and resource ('the provided text') and clearly specifies the output ('back to the caller'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings 'add' and 'server_time', which perform unrelated operations.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: an agent would use this when it needs to mirror or return the exact input text. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions, though for such a trivial tool that is not a major gap.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (ISO 8601) and timezone (UTC), which are important behavioral details beyond just 'returns the time'. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the verb 'Returns' implies a read-only observation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the key output characteristics, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains what is returned and in what format. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret the result. Sibling tools do not create ambiguity.

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 the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, zero parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits parameter information because there is nothing to explain.

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 clear verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('current server time'), and precise detail (ISO 8601, UTC). This fully distinguishes the tool from siblings 'add' and 'echo', which have entirely 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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use when you need the server time. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Since the siblings are unrelated, this is adequate but not explicit.

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