SD Elements MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only vs. destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. It mentions 'find' which suggests retrieval, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or data scope, making it insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Find survey answers by text' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, usage scenarios, and output expectations, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The minimal description doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (project_id and search_texts). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying text-based search, which is already covered by the schema's 'search_texts' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 'Find survey answers by text' clearly states the verb (find) and resource (survey answers), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_survey_answers_for_project' or 'search_texts' parameter usage. It specifies the search mechanism (by text) but lacks detail on what constitutes 'finding' versus other retrieval methods.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_survey_answers_for_project' or 'search_texts' in other tools. The description implies usage for text-based searches but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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