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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The only implied behavioral trait is that it is a search operation, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 with an additional warning, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be structured slightly better (e.g., separating the usage guidance), but overall it is efficient and earned its place.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate context on tool purpose and prerequisite usage. However, it lacks information about return format, pagination, error handling, or what happens when no results are found, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the detailed schema descriptions for each parameter (e.g., term, begin, limit, regions, etc.). The main added value is the guidance on using list_filters, which is not parameter-specific.

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 explicitly states that the tool searches for job offers (stage, alternance, emploi, or job étudiant) on iQuesta.com, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_job and list_filters by describing its filtering capabilities and the prerequisite call to list_filters.

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 instructs users to call list_filters first to obtain valid IDs for filtering by region, discipline, or contract type, and warns against guessing IDs. This provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not 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.