contractor-license-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the 25-item maximum limit and partial failure handling where individual failures don't block others. This provides important operational details not captured in 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?

The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality (batch verification with limit) and key behavioral trait (partial failure handling). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 (batch operation with partial failures), rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is lack of output schema, so the description doesn't explain return values or format details, but it does mention response format as a parameter.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain license number formats or trade types). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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: 'Verify multiple contractor licenses in a single request' with a specific maximum (25). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing batch verification versus single verification (clv_verify_license) or search by name (clv_search_by_name).

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 clear context for when to use this tool (batch verification of up to 25 licenses) and mentions partial failure handling, which is useful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare it to alternatives like clv_verify_license for single licenses.

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