SF-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns data in a single call and includes optional compensation, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication behavior, error handling, or data freshness. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides only basic operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by return details and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section is somewhat lengthy but necessary given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, return data, and all parameters semantically. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them further.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 7 parameters, including examples (e.g., 'jsmith', 'DC55'), required status, and the purpose of 'include_compensation'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Get a complete employee profile') and resources ('employee profile including job info, contact details, and manager'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_employee_history' or 'get_compensation_details' by specifying it returns current comprehensive data in a single call.

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 implies usage by listing what data is returned and mentioning an optional compensation inclusion, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_employee_history' for historical data or 'get_compensation_details' for compensation-only queries. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided beyond parameter requirements.

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