mcp2ws

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 but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be needed, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. The SOAP reference is technical but doesn't explain practical behavior for an AI agent.

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 ('SOAP method: CountryIntPhoneCode') with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it lacks essential information that would make it useful. The structure is simple but doesn't front-load key details about the tool's function.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide any context needed for an AI agent to use it effectively. The complexity of country/phone code lookup demands more explanation than provided.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'sCountryISOCode', and the tool description adds no semantic information about this parameter. It doesn't explain what a 'CountryISOCode' is, provide examples (like 'US' or 'GB'), mention format constraints, or relate it to the tool's purpose. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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: CountryIntPhoneCode' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added value. It vaguely suggests this is a SOAP-based method related to country international phone codes, but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'retrieve the international phone code for a country' or 'look up phone dialing prefixes'). Compared to siblings like 'CountryFlag' or 'CountryCurrency', the purpose remains unclear.

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 doesn't mention what problem it solves, what inputs it expects beyond the schema, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'CountryISOCode' or 'FullCountryInfo'. There's no context about use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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