barevalue-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behaviors: it's a pre-check validation tool (non-destructive), does not charge credits (cost implication), and validates specific content thresholds. It doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving some gaps.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states purpose, second adds validation specifics, third clarifies cost, fourth provides usage context, and fifth gives sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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?

For a single-parameter validation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, usage context, behavioral traits (no charges), and sibling differentiation. It lacks details on output format or error cases, but is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (file_url parameter fully documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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: 'Pre-check an audio file from a URL before submission' with specific validation criteria (speech content ≥10%, music-only detection). It distinguishes from siblings like barevalue_submit (for submission) and barevalue_upload (where validation is unnecessary).

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for external URLs before submitting' and 'For files uploaded via barevalue_upload, validation is not needed - go directly to submit.' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives (barevalue_submit, barevalue_upload).

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