AI-powered contractor recommendation. Finds the best matching companies based on budget, region, quality requirements. Returns ranked list with match scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| budget_max | No | ||
| budget_min | No | ||
| min_rating | No | ||
| need_contacts | No | ||
| need_portfolio | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is AI-powered and returns a ranked list with match scores, which goes beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention that all parameters are optional with defaults, how empty criteria behave, or other behavioral nuances. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.
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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff and every sentence carries meaningful information. 'AI-powered' is slightly buzzwordy but not redundant.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a 7-parameter tool. It does not explain how parameters interrelate, what the defaults imply, or how to select this tool over siblings like find_best_companies or smart_match. The absence of parameter coverage and usage guidance leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'budget, region, quality requirements' which map to budget_min/max, region, and min_rating, but it fails to explain category, need_contacts, or need_portfolio. With 7 parameters and only partial mapping, the description adds limited value for parameter understanding.
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 the tool's function: it finds the best matching companies based on budget, region, and quality requirements, and returns a ranked list with match scores. It uses a specific verb ('finds') and resource ('companies'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings like find_best_companies or smart_match, so it misses the full 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?
The description implies when to use the tool by specifying the input criteria (budget, region, quality requirements), providing clear context. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, offering only implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.