Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by specifying 'optional pagination' and clarifying that products are 'reusable items for invoices and quotes', which provides context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed behavioral traits like 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes redundant bilingual text (English and Spanish) that adds length without additional value for an AI agent. Each sentence is relevant, but the duplication reduces efficiency, making it less concise than ideal.

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 (list operation with pagination), rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, etc.), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, basic usage, and context, though it could benefit from mentioning response format or error handling to be fully comprehensive.

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 clear documentation for 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description mentions 'optional pagination' but does not add specific meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 ('List all products/services') and the resource ('products/services'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_product' (singular) or 'create_product' (write operation). It also specifies the scope ('with optional pagination') and provides context about what products are ('reusable items that can be added to invoices and quotes'), which helps differentiate from other list tools like 'list_clients' or 'list_invoices'.

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 mentioning pagination and the nature of products, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_product' or 'search_invoices'. It provides clear context about the tool's function, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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