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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a list but doesn't specify details like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no matches. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a search tool.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like the tool name or specific parameters to enhance clarity.

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 two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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) with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining query syntax or countryCode usage. 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 persons by parameters and returns a list, which clarifies the basic action. However, it's vague about what 'parameters' specifically means (only implied by the schema), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like search_company_by_name, which perform similar searches but for different entities.

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. The description mentions 'parameters' but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't reference sibling tools or clarify if this is the primary person-search method versus other potential options.

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