B2Bhint MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning a list but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no matches. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and result. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming key parameters or distinguishing from siblings, but it's concise overall.

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, no output schema, and a search tool with potential complexity (e.g., result format, error handling), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains, how results are ordered, or any limitations. For a tool with 2 parameters and siblings, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (q and countryCode) well. The description adds minimal value beyond implying parameters exist, but doesn't provide additional semantics like search behavior or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool searches for companies by parameters and returns a list, which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'parameters' specifically means (only implied by the schema), and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like search_company_by_email or search_person_by_name. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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 siblings like get_company_basic_data or get_company_full_data, nor does it explain when to use search_company_by_email instead. There's no context for exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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