EVE Online Companion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Shows inputs, outputs, and cycle times' which adds some behavioral context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what format the output takes. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise and well-structured in a single sentence. It front-loads the core functionality ('Browse PI products') and efficiently covers both filtering methods and what information is shown. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context about what the tool does and what information it returns. However, for a tool that presumably returns complex PI product data with inputs, outputs, and cycle times, the description doesn't adequately explain the return format or structure. The completeness is minimal but adequate for a simple browse/search 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'tier (P0-P4)' and 'search by name' which aligns with the schema's descriptions. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured schema fields.

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 purpose: 'Browse PI products by tier (P0-P4) or search by name.' It specifies the verb ('browse') and resource ('PI products') with two filtering methods. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eve_pi_colonies' or 'eve_pi_plan', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 alternatives. It mentions browsing by tier or search, but doesn't compare to sibling tools like 'eve_search' or 'eve_type_info' that might overlap in functionality. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context provided.

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