nexusfeed-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions speed ('faster'), precision ('more precise'), and the '_verifiability block' with source URL for independent verification. It doesn't cover rate limits or error handling, but provides significant operational insight beyond basic function.

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 core purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second contrasts with sibling, the third gives usage example, and the fourth explains verification. 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 tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and verification, compensating for lack of annotations. The output schema handles return values, so no need to explain them here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'license_number' is 'state-issued' and used for 'point-in-time verification', and implies 'state' is needed for context, but doesn't detail format (e.g., state codes) or constraints. It adds some meaning but doesn't fully document the two parameters.

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 'looks up' and resource 'liquor license', specifying it's by 'state-issued license number' and returns 'full current record' with enumerated details. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'abc_search_licenses' by noting it's 'faster and more precise when you already have the license number'.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for point-in-time verification' with an example, and directly contrasts with sibling 'abc_search_licenses' by stating when to prefer this tool ('when you already have the license number'). No misleading or missing guidance is present.

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