Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying it 'Returns full contact details,' which is useful context not covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a bilingual translation, which is efficient for clarity. However, the translation adds redundancy without new information, slightly reducing conciseness, though it remains well-structured.

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 (single parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and return details, but could improve by mentioning error cases (e.g., invalid ID) or linking to sibling tools more explicitly.

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 the 'id' parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format or examples for the ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single client by their ID'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_clients' by specifying it retrieves a single client rather than multiple. The bilingual format reinforces this clarity without ambiguity.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'by their ID,' which guides when to use this tool (for retrieving a specific client) versus alternatives like 'list_clients' (for multiple clients). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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