NDI-MCP-Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content (AI scoring, flags, etc.), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, permissions required, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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, dense sentence with zero waste—every word contributes to clarifying purpose and output details. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently lists the specific data returned.

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 partially compensates by detailing return content. However, for a tool that retrieves complex data (AI scoring, flags, etc.), it lacks information on response structure, error cases, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 the 'deal_id' parameter. The description adds context by noting the ID comes from 'search_deals results', which is helpful but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific deal by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_deals' (which lists multiple deals) or 'score_deal' (which focuses on scoring). It specifies the exact scope of details returned, including AI scoring breakdown, green/red flags, etc.

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 implies usage when you need comprehensive details for a known deal ID, contrasting with 'search_deals' for finding deals or 'score_deal' for scoring. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, such as not using it for bulk retrieval or when only basic info is needed.

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