Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent traits, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies the return content ('full quote with line items and totals'), which isn't in annotations. This helps the agent understand the output structure despite no output schema.

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 in the first sentence, and the bilingual repetition is efficient for clarity without redundancy. Every sentence directly supports tool understanding, with no wasted words.

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 simple parameter schema, rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, specifies the return content, and works well with structured data to provide full context for a read operation.

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' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add extra meaning about the parameter beyond implying it's required for retrieval, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating further.

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' and resource 'single quote/estimate by its ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_quotes (which returns multiple) and create_quote/update_quote/delete_quote (which modify). The bilingual format reinforces but doesn't detract from the specificity.

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 when you have a specific quote ID and need full details, differentiating from list_quotes for bulk retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. search_invoices for broader queries) or name alternatives, keeping it at 4.

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