CData Sync MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing: 1) the three return value types (list, count, get), 2) common errors with explanations, and 3) retention policy implications ('Logs purged'). It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, followed by clearly labeled RETURN and COMMON ERRORS sections. Every sentence adds value - no repetition or wasted words. The three-section format makes it easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: clear purpose, return value explanation, and error handling. It doesn't explain the relationship between the three action types or provide examples of typical use cases, but covers the essentials well given the complexity.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 as 'Access API request logs for auditing, debugging, and compliance' - a specific verb ('access') with resource ('API request logs') and context (three use cases). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_history' or 'read_jobs' that might also read different types of logs.

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. With multiple 'read_' sibling tools (read_history, read_jobs, read_tasks, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes API request logs from other log types or when this specific tool is appropriate.

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