armavita-quo-mcp

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 states this is a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') and resource. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from included details. Overall, it's appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and what details are returned, but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output structure. For a read-only tool, this is borderline viable but leaves room for improvement in guiding an agent 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?

The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'phoneNumberId'. It clarifies that the ID corresponds to a 'specific phone number', but doesn't provide additional details like format examples or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the 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 verb 'Get details' and the resource 'specific phone number by ID', making the purpose evident. It also specifies what details are included (users, restrictions, forwarding settings), which adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_phone_numbers' or 'get_user', which could help an agent choose between them.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a phone number ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_phone_numbers' for browsing or 'get_user' for user-related phone info. This lack of context could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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