alderpost-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pricing, which adds useful context about cost, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what specific 'location intelligence' entails beyond listed features. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's incomplete for a tool with potential complexity.

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 front-loaded with key functionality and includes pricing in a single, efficient sentence. It avoids unnecessary details, but could be more structured by separating features from cost information. Overall, it's concise with minimal waste, though minor improvements in organization are possible.

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 functionality and cost, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral traits. For a tool with one parameter and moderate complexity (scoring multiple aspects), it's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness, such as not explaining the scoring methodology or output format.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter well-documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, it does imply that the address is used for geocoding and scoring, which slightly enhances understanding, but not enough to exceed the baseline.

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 provides location intelligence services including geocoding, amenities, schools, elevation, and walkability with scoring. It specifies the resource (location data) and outputs (scores 0-100). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'company_xray' or 'health_signal' that might also provide location-related data, keeping 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 includes pricing information ($0.75 USDC on Base), which implies a cost context, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions on use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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