UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds minimal context about the 'near a location' scope but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like distance limits, result formats, or performance characteristics that would be helpful beyond the 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 - a single sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place efficiently.

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 simplicity (single parameter, comprehensive annotations, existence of output schema), the description is reasonably complete. The output schema will handle return value documentation, and annotations cover safety aspects. However, more guidance about usage context would make it more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds some semantic context by indicating the parameter should be a 'location', but doesn't specify format (e.g., address, coordinates), validation rules, or examples. The baseline is appropriate given the single parameter, but more detail would improve understanding.

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 a specific verb ('find') and resource ('bus stops near a location'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its only sibling tool 'get_bus_routes', which could be a related but distinct operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_bus_routes' or other location-based tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over other options.

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