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 basic behavioral traits. The description adds useful context about the requirement for client name and line items, and the future conversion capability to invoices, which are not captured in annotations, but does not detail other behaviors like error handling or response format.

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 key information in the first sentence, but includes a redundant Spanish translation that adds no value for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency. Otherwise, it is structured well with no wasted sentences.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it covers the purpose, prerequisites, and a key behavioral trait (conversion to invoices). However, it lacks details on the response format or error cases, which would be helpful since there is no output schema, leaving some gaps in full 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters, including their types, requirements, and constraints. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning client name and line items as requirements, but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool creates a new quote/estimate for a client, specifying both the verb ('create') and resource ('quote/estimate'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_invoice' by noting quotes can later be converted to invoices, which is a unique feature among creation tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (creating quotes for clients) and mentions a prerequisite (requires client name and at least one line item), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'create_invoice' for direct invoice creation, though the conversion hint implies a workflow.

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