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 discloses authentication requirements (auth_user_id and auth_password are required) and some behavioral traits (default values, maximum limits for 'top' parameter). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, pagination behavior, or what 'active' means operationally.

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, use cases, and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter section is quite detailed (necessary given schema gaps). It could be slightly more concise by integrating some parameter details into the main description.

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 complexity (8 parameters, authentication requirements) and presence of an output schema, the description provides substantial context. It covers authentication, parameter meanings, use cases, and data scope. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like rate limits or 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 for 8 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic explanations for every parameter. It clarifies what each parameter represents (e.g., 'SAP data center code', 'Environment type', 'Maximum direct reports to return'), including default values and constraints that aren't in the 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 a manager's team roster') and resource ('with direct (and optionally indirect) reports'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_employee_profile or search_employees. It explicitly mentions what data is returned (job title, department, location, hire date) and the scope (active team members).

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 when to use this tool ('Useful for org chart views, team planning, and 1-on-1 prep'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. It implies usage for manager-focused team data retrieval.

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