SF-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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions authentication requirements in the parameter list, it doesn't describe the tool's behavior beyond the basic check—such as whether it returns a boolean, detailed permission info, error handling, rate limits, or side effects. For a permission-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a brief elaboration, and then a detailed parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations are lengthy but necessary given the schema coverage gap. It could be slightly more front-loaded with usage context.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 7 required) and the presence of an output schema (which means return values don't need explanation in the description), the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameters in detail and states the tool's purpose. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., how the check is performed, error cases) and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 description includes a detailed 'Args' section that explains each of the 8 parameters, providing meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies parameter purposes (e.g., 'instance: The SuccessFactors instance/company ID'), gives examples (e.g., for 'permission_type'), and notes defaults (e.g., 'locale: Locale for labels (default: en-US)'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Check if a specific user has a particular permission' and 'Quickly verify whether a user has access to a specific feature or data.' This specifies the verb ('check/verify') and resource ('user permission/access'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_permissions' or 'get_role_permissions' that might retrieve permission lists rather than check a specific one.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_user_permissions' (which might list all permissions for a user) or 'get_role_permissions' (which might check role-based permissions), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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