One New York Daily News author's public profile: name, job title, bio, public email and X/Twitter handle, and their recent articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| slug | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the profile information is 'public' and that recent articles are included, but it says nothing about how the two identifiers interact or whether both must be supplied — a meaningful behavioral gap for a lookup 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly front-heavy with a return-field enumeration that partly duplicates the output schema, but nothing is wasted.
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 restated. However, the two input parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent unable to choose between url and slug — a significant omission for a lookup tool.
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 never mentions either parameter. With two optional identifiers (url and slug) and no required field, an agent has no guidance on which to pass, whether one is preferred, or whether they are mutually exclusive. The description fails to compensate for the zero 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 names a specific resource ('One New York Daily News author's public profile') and enumerates the contents (name, job title, bio, email, X handle, recent articles), so an agent can tell it apart from nydailynews_article or nydailynews_headlines. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling for differentiation, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The agent must infer that this is the profile-lookup counterpart to the article tools purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
