Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations declare (e.g., no rate limits, auth needs, or response format details). With comprehensive annotations, the bar is lower, and the description doesn't contradict them, earning a baseline score.

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 brief (one sentence plus bilingual repetition) and front-loaded with the core functionality. The bilingual format adds redundancy but doesn't significantly impact clarity. Every part serves a purpose, though the repetition slightly reduces efficiency.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation), comprehensive annotations, and clear purpose, the description is sufficiently complete. No output schema exists, but for a basic retrieval tool, the description adequately sets expectations without needing to detail return values. It covers the essential 'what' and 'how' for agent use.

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% with the parameter 'id' fully documented in both schema and description. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or ID sourcing). With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('product/service') with specific identification method ('by its ID'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_products (which retrieves multiple items) and create_product/update_product/delete_product (which modify rather than retrieve). The bilingual format reinforces but doesn't dilute the clarity.

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 - when you need a single product identified by ID rather than listing all products or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs list_products for multiple items) or name specific alternatives, though the sibling tool names make these alternatives obvious.

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