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. While it mentions authentication requirements in the Args section, it doesn't describe rate limits, error conditions, response format, or what 'detailed permissions' actually includes. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 usage context, then detailed parameters. The Args section is comprehensive but necessary given the parameter count. One minor improvement could be integrating parameter explanations more seamlessly.

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, but with output schema), the description provides good coverage of inputs and purpose. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, more behavioral context would improve completeness for this authentication-required tool.

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 in the Args section. Each parameter gets clear semantic context with examples (e.g., 'e.g., "10"', 'e.g., 'DC55'', 'default: en-US'), adding substantial 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 specific action ('Get detailed permissions') and resource ('for a specific RBP role'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_permissions or get_rbp_roles. It explicitly mentions the purpose is for security audits, providing clear differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool ('essential for security audits'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for role permission analysis without comparative guidance.

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