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 default/max values for 'top', but doesn't cover rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what specific data fields are returned. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 upfront, followed by detailed parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args section is quite lengthy due to 9 parameters. It could be more concise by grouping related parameters, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 (9 parameters, authentication required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters and their semantics. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (rate limits, error handling), but the output schema reduces 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation in the Args section. Each parameter is clearly explained with examples (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD', 'DC55'), defaults ('default: 100'), constraints ('max: 500'), and requirements ('required'). This adds substantial meaning 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: 'List recent and upcoming new hires for onboarding planning' and 'Shows employees hired within a date range with their job details.' This specifies the verb ('list', 'shows'), resource ('new hires', 'employees'), and scope ('recent and upcoming', 'within a date range', 'with job details'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_terminations or get_employee_profile.

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 context ('for onboarding planning') and date-range filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_employees or get_employee_history. It provides basic functional context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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