mcp2ws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'SOAP method', which implies a web service call but doesn't specify whether it's read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. This is inadequate for a tool with unknown behavior.

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 concise (one phrase) but under-specified—it's too brief to be helpful. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 (a SOAP method with one parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's function, parameter usage, or expected output, leaving critical gaps for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—doesn't clarify what 'sCountryISOCode' represents (e.g., ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code), valid formats, or examples. The single required parameter remains undocumented.

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: CountryCurrency' is tautological—it restates the tool name with technical jargon but doesn't explain what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'retrieve', 'convert') and resource (e.g., 'currency for a country'), making the purpose vague. Compared to siblings like 'CurrencyName' or 'CountryName', it's unclear how this tool differs.

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. With siblings like 'CurrencyName', 'CountriesUsingCurrency', and 'ListOfCurrenciesByCode', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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