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 does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's currently unavailable, will return an unavailability message, and returns fee schedule data. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or data freshness, but for a tool marked as coming soon, the transparency about unavailability is appropriately emphasized.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope, while the second provides critical behavioral and usage information. The '[COMING SOON]' prefix could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient with zero 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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete regarding parameters. However, it does cover purpose, current availability status, and alternative tool usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but parameter documentation remains a significant gap.

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 but provides no parameter information. It mentions 'carriers' and 'fee types' in examples but doesn't explain the two parameters (carriers and fee_types) or their expected values. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Returns the current accessorial fee schedule for LTL carriers' with specific examples (liftgate, residential delivery, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling ltl_get_fuel_surcharge by specifying different data types. However, the '[COMING SOON]' prefix and mention of unavailability slightly dilute the clarity of current functionality.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it states when NOT to use this tool ('This tool is not yet available and will return an unavailability message') and provides a clear alternative ('Use ltl_get_fuel_surcharge for current carrier data'). This directly addresses when to use alternatives.

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