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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements ('auth_user_id' and 'auth_password' are required) and result limits ('top' with default 50, max 200), which are useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'view' but not explicit), rate limits, error handling, or what 'visible to you' means in terms of permissions.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by a detailed parameter section. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly, but the separation into purpose and args sections is logical and helpful.

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 (which means return values don't need explanation in the description), the description is reasonably complete. It covers authentication needs, filtering options, and result limits. The main gap is lack of explicit read-only confirmation and permission context, but overall it provides good context for a query 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?

The description includes an 'Args:' section that documents all 9 parameters with clear explanations, default values, and examples (e.g., data center codes like 'DC55', status values like 'pending'). With 0% schema description coverage, this parameter documentation in the description fully compensates and provides essential semantic context 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: 'View time-off requests for approval tracking' and 'Shows pending, approved, or rejected time-off requests.' It specifies the verb ('view', 'shows') and resource ('time-off requests'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_time_off_balances' or 'get_upcoming_time_off' beyond the approval tracking context.

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 some usage context: 'Filter by employee or view all requests visible to you' and mentions filtering by status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_time_off_balances' (which might show balances rather than requests) or 'get_upcoming_time_off' (which might show scheduled time off). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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