B2Bhint 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 offers minimal behavioral context. It states this is a read operation ('return') but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'other data' might include. The description is too vague about the tool's behavior beyond the basic retrieval claim.

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 sentence that's reasonably concise but could be more front-loaded. It wastes words on redundant phrasing ('Get company details endpoint will return') and could more efficiently state the core functionality. The structure is adequate but not optimal.

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 and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It mentions 'contacts, financial reports and other data' but doesn't specify what format this data comes in, whether it's paginated, or what 'other data' includes. For a tool that presumably returns comprehensive company information, more detail about the response structure would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (internationalNumber and countryCode). It doesn't explain how these parameters relate to retrieving company data or provide context about their usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving full company data including contacts, financial reports, and other data. It uses specific verbs ('Get', 'return') and identifies the resource ('company details'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_company_basic_data' beyond implying 'full' vs 'basic' data.

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 like 'get_company_basic_data' for basic data or the search tools for finding companies. The description implies it returns comprehensive data but doesn't specify use cases or prerequisites.

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