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. The description 'SOAP method: CountryName' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—whether it's a read operation, what it returns, error conditions, or any side effects. It fails to provide any meaningful context beyond the name.

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 with a single phrase, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary words, it fails to convey essential information, making it ineffective despite its brevity. 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 tool with one parameter but no schema descriptions or annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect in return, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 one parameter (sCountryISOCode) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds no details about the parameter, such as what ISO code format is expected (e.g., 'US', 'GB'), examples, or constraints. It doesn't 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: CountryName' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name without clarifying what it does. It doesn't specify the verb (e.g., 'get', 'lookup', 'retrieve') or the resource (e.g., 'country name from ISO code'), leaving the purpose vague. Compared to siblings like 'CountryISOCode' or 'CountryCurrency', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ListOfCountryNamesByCode' and 'FullCountryInfo', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers no help in distinguishing this tool's use case from related tools.

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