SF-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation (finding/checking) and specifies authentication requirements. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, pagination behavior beyond 'top' parameter, or what happens when no results are found. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 purpose statement, field checks, and detailed parameter documentation. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter section is lengthy but necessary given the schema coverage gap.

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 0% schema coverage, the description does an excellent job explaining inputs. With an output schema present, return values don't need explanation. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, but overall it's quite complete for the agent's needs.

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 detailed parameter explanations. Each of the 8 parameters is clearly documented with examples, defaults, and requirements. The description adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, explaining field options, data center codes, environment types, and authentication needs.

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 specific purpose: 'Find employees with incomplete profiles for compliance audits' with explicit verb 'find' and resource 'employees with incomplete profiles'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on missing data checks rather than general employee retrieval or other HR functions.

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 clear context for usage ('for compliance audits') and specifies what fields are checked, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The context is well-defined but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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