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 important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, what happens when no results are found, or how results are structured. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly, but overall it's efficiently organized without wasted words.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 7 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. The parameter documentation is thorough, and the output schema will handle return value documentation. However, for a tool with no annotations and significant behavioral implications (authentication, data retrieval), the description could better address operational context like error conditions or result formatting.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear documentation for all 10 parameters. Each parameter is listed with meaningful explanations: date formats, example values, defaults, and constraints. The description adds substantial value beyond what the bare schema provides, explaining what each parameter means and how to use it.

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: 'Find employees with upcoming work anniversaries for recognition programs.' This specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('employees'), and context ('for recognition programs'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_new_hires' or 'get_terminations' which also retrieve employee data based on different criteria.

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. With many sibling tools that retrieve employee data (e.g., 'get_new_hires', 'get_terminations', 'search_employees'), there's no indication of when anniversary searches are appropriate versus other employee queries. The description mentions the context ('for recognition programs') but doesn't provide explicit usage rules or exclusions.

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