nexusfeed-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what metadata is returned (SCAC code, data products, fuel surcharge update day, extraction method), which adds useful context beyond the input/output schemas. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and key metadata, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is mostly complete. It adds value by explaining the metadata content and usage context. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like rate limits or data freshness, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are required by not mentioning any, aligning with the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it adequately handles the parameter context.

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 with specific verbs ('Returns metadata') and resources ('all LTL carriers'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for discovering coverage before building comparison workflows, unlike ltl_get_accessorials or ltl_get_fuel_surcharge which focus on specific data products.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to discover coverage before building a carrier comparison workflow'), providing clear context for its application relative to other tools that might retrieve specific carrier data or accessorials.

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