EVE Online Companion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is returned but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely queries external data sources.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the specific data types returned. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 data query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, data structure, potential limitations, or how the different data types (kills, jumps, sovereignty) relate to each other. The agent would need to guess about the response format and behavioral characteristics.

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 schema already documents both parameters completely. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'intel for a solar system', specifying the exact data types returned (recent kills, NPC kills, jumps, sovereignty). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'eve_intel_character' and 'eve_intel_corporation' by focusing on solar systems rather than characters or corporations.

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 solar system intelligence gathering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eve_system_info' (which might provide static system data) or other intel tools. 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.