DART-MCP

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 discloses the return value ('detailed message about connection test process and results'), which is helpful given the lack of output schema. However, it fails to mention safety characteristics (read-only vs. write), side effects, or whether the test consumes API quota/rate limits.

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 appropriately concise and structured with clear Purpose, Args, and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main function. The Args section mentioning 'ctx' is slightly redundant since it's not part of the user-facing schema, but it does not significantly detract from clarity.

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's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by describing the return value. For a simple connectivity test tool, the level of detail provided is adequate, though usage context would be beneficial.

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?

With zero parameters in the input schema, the baseline score is 4. The description mentions 'ctx: MCP Context 객체' which corresponds to the framework-injected context, not a user-facing parameter. Since there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation, this is acceptable.

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 tests connection status with the DART server (specific verb + resource). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools (e.g., when to use this diagnostic vs. the search functions), which prevents a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the available search alternatives (search_business_information, search_disclosure, etc.). It does not mention prerequisites, such as using this to verify connectivity before attempting searches.

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