mcp2ws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about what the tool does (e.g., read-only lookup, potential side effects, error handling, or output format). The phrase 'SOAP method' hints at a web service protocol but does not clarify behavior, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase, but this brevity leads to under-specification rather than effective communication. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks the front-loaded clarity needed for an AI agent, making it inefficient in conveying purpose or usage.

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 complexity of a lookup tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a capital city name), how to interpret inputs, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no semantic information about the parameter 'sCountryISOCode'. It does not explain what this parameter represents (e.g., a country ISO code), its expected format, or how it influences the tool's operation, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'SOAP method: CapitalCity' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name with technical protocol information. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves the capital city of a country) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'CountryName' or 'FullCountryInfo'. The purpose remains vague beyond the name.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., 'CountryName' or 'FullCountryInfo') that might serve similar or overlapping purposes. Usage is entirely implied, leaving the agent without direction.

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