amadeus-agent-intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond the 1–90 day bound, it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what `limit` does, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed for a list-style discovery 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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose before the parameter note, with no filler. The stray backtick artifact around ``days`` is minor noise but does not hurt comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves `limit`'s effect and sibling disambiguation unaddressed, making it only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does so by giving the `days` range (1–90) and theme examples, but the `limit` parameter is never explained anywhere, so one of three parameters remains undocumented.

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+resource ('Neu entdeckte MCP-Server der letzten ``days`` Tage'), so an agent can tell it returns recently discovered servers within a time window. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings recent_changes or service_status, which leaves overlap ambiguous.

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 1–90 range for `days` and the theme-key examples imply intended usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or disambiguation against recent_changes/service_status. Usage is only inferable.

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 behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only query, does not mention pagination, rate limits, or ordering, and only implicitly signals read behavior through the word 'Änderungen'.

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 short sentences with the time scope front-loaded and per-parameter notes following. Efficient, though the mixed-language phrasing and the split across two lines make it slightly less scannable than it could be.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are covered. What is missing is the usage context (when to prefer this over the sibling tools) and any behavioral disclosure, which is a real gap given zero annotation coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it gives the valid range for `days` (1–90), explains `service` as an optional substring match on the service name, and lists the accepted `min_severity` values. Only the default of `days` (7) is left to 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?

States a resource ('Änderungen') and a time scope (last `days` days), which is enough to know it retrieves recent change events. However it never clarifies what kind of change is meant (deployments, config, incidents) and does not distinguish itself from the siblings new_servers or service_status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The severity and service filters are described syntactically but not framed as selection criteria.

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 disclosure burden alone; 'aktueller Verfügbarkeitsstatus' implies a live, read-only lookup and defines the unfiltered default scope. However, it says nothing about data freshness, whether results are cached, or any auth/rate-limit behavior for a monitoring endpoint.

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 short lines with no padding: the purpose leads, and the parameter note follows. Front-loading is good, though the bare two-block layout without a marker for the parameter line is slightly rough.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema (which handles return-value documentation), the description covers purpose, filter semantics, and default behavior adequately. Gaps are limited to freshness/auth context, which is minor at this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'name' is an optional substring matched against service name or slug, supplies a concrete example, and states the default (all services when omitted). Only the matching case-sensitivity/partial-match rules remain unstated.

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 resource and scope: the current availability status of monitored services ('Aktueller Verfügbarkeitsstatus der überwachten Dienste'). An agent can tell this is a status-lookup tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the siblings new_servers or recent_changes.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint ('Ohne Angabe: alle Dienste') is parameter behavior rather than usage guidance.

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