Connect-MCP

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the ranking basis (how often other agents reported success), the return shape (up to 5 candidates with install details, docs/OpenAPI links), the ticket artifact, and a prompt-injection warning about public-directory text. These are behavioral traits the annotations do not carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries content (purpose, input format, return shape, ranking, follow-up, safety). It is dense with parentheticals, which slightly taxes readability, but there is no filler to remove.

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 search tool with an output schema, annotations, and a nested needs object, the description covers the full agent loop: how to invoke, what comes back, how results are ranked, what to do next, and a safety caveat. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 67% and the description reinforces semantics the schema only partially covers: the 'task' phrasing guidance with a worked example, and the 'up to 5' cap on results that contextualizes the limit parameter. The needs.kind/auth/transport semantics remain schema-only, so it adds value but does not fully compensate.

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 specific verb (Find) and resource (MCP servers or web APIs), plus the scope condition ('a task you cannot do yet'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling report by describing the discovery role versus the post-trial reporting role.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('a task you cannot do yet'), how to phrase the input ('describe the task in plain words' with a concrete example), and routes the agent to the sibling afterwards ('After trying a candidate, call report with that ticket'). This is a complete when-to-use loop with the alternative named.

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?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: anonymous submission with no identity stored, ticket lifetime of 7 days, and a 280-character cap on the reason with an explicit prohibition on personal data or secrets. It does not describe what happens on an expired or invalid ticket.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its dependency on find, then constraints. No filler, and every clause (ticket expiry, anonymity, enum values, length cap) carries information an agent needs.

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, and the description covers the workflow, prerequisites, and submission constraints. It stops short of noting error behavior (e.g. what happens when the ticket has expired), which is a minor residual gap for a write operation.

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 75% and the description reinforces the key semantics: ticket provenance and expiry, the four legal outcome values matching the enum, and that why is optional with a 280-char limit. The 'never include personal data or secrets' constraint on why is genuine value the schema does not carry, though id is left to the schema alone.

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?

Specific verb (report) tied to a specific resource (outcome for a candidate returned by find) and explicitly links to the find workflow that produces the id/ticket. An agent can separate this from find immediately: find discovers candidates, report scores them.

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?

States the precondition clearly (must have the ticket from find, valid 7 days), which tells the agent exactly when this tool is callable. It does not spell out when not to call it (e.g. expired ticket, already-reported candidate), but the context is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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