UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying it returns a list of current borrowings. It doesn't disclose additional context like authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved with more usage guidance, but the structured data compensates well for the gaps.

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, the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'by a student', which hints at the 'student_id' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. This partial compensation keeps it at the baseline for minimal parameter insight.

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 action ('Get list') and resource ('books currently borrowed by a student'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_book_availability' or 'search_library_books', which might also involve book-related queries, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for current borrowings only versus historical data, or how it differs from 'check_book_availability'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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