armavita-originality-ai-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it discloses the operation's purpose (plagiarism checking), the return format ('overall plagiarism percentage and matched sources with URLs'), performance characteristics ('can take up to 60 seconds'), and cost implications ('cheaper than scan_full'). However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral picture.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's scope, describing outputs, noting performance characteristics, and providing usage/cost guidance. There's no redundant information, and key details are front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what the tool returns and its behavioral characteristics. However, it doesn't describe the exact structure of the returned data (e.g., format of 'matched sources'), error conditions, or authentication requirements, which would make it more complete for an agent's understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 clearly states the specific verb ('check content for plagiarism') and resource ('content'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by stating 'no AI detection, readability, or grammar' and comparing it to 'scan_full'. This provides precise differentiation from alternatives like scan_ai, scan_readability, and scan_full.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to verify content originality before publishing') and when not to use it ('no AI detection, readability, or grammar'). It also names an alternative ('scan_full') and explains the trade-off ('cheaper than scan_full since only plagiarism credits are used'), giving clear context for selection among siblings.

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