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). The description adds minimal context beyond this, only noting it's for client-specific searches. It doesn't contradict annotations, but also doesn't elaborate on rate limits, auth needs, or result format, leaving room for more behavioral insight.

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 the core purpose stated first. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy but doesn't significantly bloat it. Every sentence contributes to understanding, though the second sentence in each language is slightly repetitive.

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 (search with filtering and pagination), annotations cover safety (read-only, etc.), and schema fully describes inputs, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output details (no schema provided) and deeper behavioral context, making it complete enough for basic use but not rich in guidance.

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 parameters (clientName, limit, offset). The description mentions 'client name' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as search behavior (exact match, partial) or default values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search invoices by client name' specifies both the verb (search) and resource (invoices). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_invoices' by indicating filtering capability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other search tools since none exist. The bilingual format doesn't detract from 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 with 'Useful for finding all invoices for a specific client,' suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'list_invoices' for unfiltered listing). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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