Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-openWorld operation, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds value by mentioning the tool's purpose in workflows (referencing in invoices/quotes), but does not disclose additional behavioral details like error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose and requirements. The bilingual format adds length but serves a functional purpose. Every sentence contributes value, though the repetition in Spanish could be seen as slightly redundant for an AI agent.

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 complexity (creation operation with 6 parameters), the description is adequate but lacks details on output format or error handling, especially since there is no output schema. Annotations cover safety aspects, but for a creation tool, more context on success responses or constraints would enhance completeness.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description mentions only 'name and unit price' as required, which aligns with the schema but does not add meaningful semantics beyond it. No extra parameter context is provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create a new product or service'), identifies the required resources ('name and unit price'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning its purpose for faster data entry in invoices and quotes. It provides both English and Spanish versions, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for faster data entry when creating invoices and quotes'), which provides clear context. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using update_product instead for modifications), which prevents a perfect score.

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