Haloscan 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. The description only states what the tool does at a superficial level ('get highlights') without explaining what 'highlights' entails, whether this is a read-only operation, if it has rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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?

While the description is technically concise (one short sentence), it suffers from under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient value - it's too vague to be genuinely helpful. This isn't true conciseness but rather inadequate content.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context about what this tool does and returns. The tool has one parameter with good schema coverage, but the description fails to explain what 'highlights' means, what kind of data is returned, or how this differs from other keyword-related tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with many siblings, this description is insufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'keyword' documented as 'Seed keyword'. The description doesn't add any meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides about parameters. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 'Obtenir les points forts des mots-clés' (Get the highlights of keywords) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_keywords_highlights' in French. It doesn't specify what 'highlights' means in this context or what resource is being accessed. While it mentions keywords, it lacks the specific verb+resource clarity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_keywords_overview or get_keywords_related.

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 many sibling tools focused on keywords (e.g., get_keywords_overview, get_keywords_related, get_keywords_questions), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be selected over others. The description is completely silent on usage context or exclusions.

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