MCP-iQuesta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it retrieves 'full details', but does not specify what those details include, nor any rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. For a simple read operation, minimal but acceptable.

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 is front-loaded with the essential action. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding. Ideal conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the return structure. It says 'détail complet' but lacks specifics. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequate but not rich. Could mention that it returns all fields of the job.

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 a clear description for job_id. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides ('par son ID' is already implicit). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Récupère le détail complet d'une offre par son ID' clearly states the verb (récupère), resource (offre), and method (par son ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools list_filters and search_jobs, which imply different 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 implies usage for retrieving a single job by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., 'Use search_jobs for filtering, list_filters for filter options'). No exclusions or prerequisites 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action (listing values) but does not disclose details like return format or side effects. For a read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with no wasted words. Every part is relevant and essential.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, usage context, and parameter purpose, leaving little 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 schema covers 100% of parameters with enums and descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the tool (converting names to IDs), which enriches understanding beyond 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 it lists possible values for search filters, naming specific filter types (disciplines, regions, contract types). It distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating it should be called before search_jobs.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: before search_jobs when a user mentions a sector or region, to convert the name to an ID. It provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a mandatory workflow (ask user for contract type, call list_filters before filtering, never guess IDs), but says nothing about what a result set looks like, pagination/limit interaction beyond the schema, or read-only semantics. Some procedural value, meaningful gaps remain.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the two operational rules. No filler and no repetition of schema 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?

For a 9-parameter, all-optional search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the workflow needed to call it safely (contract type confirmation, ID lookup via list_filters). Minor gap: no hint about result shape or how limit interacts with pagination.

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 documents all 9 parameters. The description adds only a marginal procedural note that contracts must be obtained from the user and never omitted, which is genuine but thin. 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 opens with a specific verb + resource ('Recherche des offres...') and enumerates the contract types it covers, plus the target site iQuesta.com. An agent can distinguish it from get_job (single retrieval) and list_filters (ID lookup) without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use behavior ('demander à l'utilisateur quel type de contrat... si ce n'est pas précisé') and explicit routing to the sibling ('appeler d'abord list_filters... ne jamais deviner un ID'). Both prerequisites and the failure mode to avoid are stated.

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