SF-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions authentication requirements and the ability to check multiple employees (max 50), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists).

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 parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter section is quite detailed (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 (7 parameters, authentication requirements) and 0% schema description coverage, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and purpose. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, some behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling aren't covered.

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 of the 7 parameters is clearly explained with examples, format requirements, and default values, adding 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 with specific verbs ('check', 'answer') and resources ('vacation, PTO, and sick leave balances for employees'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_time_off_requests' and 'get_upcoming_time_off' by focusing on balances rather than requests or upcoming time off.

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 ('Quickly answer "How much PTO do I have?" for any employee') and mentions support for checking multiple employees. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the purpose differentiation implies alternatives exist.

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