SF-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions authentication requirements in the parameter list but doesn't describe rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with 9 parameters and sensitive HR data, this is inadequate.

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 but not optimally structured. The purpose statement is clear, but the parameter documentation could be better integrated. The 'Args:' section is useful but creates some redundancy with the schema. Every sentence earns its place, but the flow could be more seamless.

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, HR compliance context) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context about authentication flows, error handling, and compliance implications. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but more operational guidance would help.

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 compensates well by providing clear explanations for all 9 parameters including examples (e.g., 'DC55', 'DC10', 'DC4' for data_center), defaults ('default: 100, max: 500' for top), and requirements ('required' for auth fields). The only gap is that 'department' lacks examples of valid values.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('terminated employees'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'for exit processing and compliance'. It's not just a generic list tool but has a specific compliance-oriented purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_employees' or 'get_employee_history'. While it mentions 'exit processing and compliance' as context, it doesn't explicitly state when this tool should be chosen over other employee-related tools in the sibling list.

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