SF-MCP

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 authentication requirements and result limits, which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are invalid. For a tool with authentication and data retrieval, more behavioral context is needed.

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 the core purpose, then provides details about what information is shown, and finally lists all parameters with clear explanations. While efficient, the parameter section could be slightly more concise by grouping related authentication parameters together.

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 (8 parameters, authentication requirements) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers authentication needs, result limits, and parameter meanings thoroughly. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about read-only nature, error handling, and rate limits, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics with 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains what each parameter means ('SuccessFactors instance/company ID', 'job requisition ID', 'SAP data center code', etc.), provides examples for data_center, specifies default values for include_rejected and top, and indicates which parameters are required. 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 with specific verbs ('track candidates', 'shows all applicants') and resources ('for a job requisition', 'through hiring stages'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_open_requisitions' by focusing on candidate tracking rather than requisition listing.

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. While it mentions what the tool does, it doesn't specify scenarios where it's preferred over other candidate-related tools or when other tools might be more appropriate. There's no mention of prerequisites or limitations beyond the parameter requirements.

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