UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal value by implying it returns detailed information, but doesn't disclose specifics like response format, error conditions, or data freshness. It doesn't contradict annotations, earning a baseline score for not repeating structured data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get detailed information about a specific scholarship') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise.

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 (handling return values), the description is reasonably complete. It states the core action clearly, though it could improve by addressing usage context or parameter details to be fully comprehensive.

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%, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining the 'scholarship_id' parameter (e.g., format, source, or examples). However, with only one required parameter and an output schema likely defining the return structure, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but with clear gaps in parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific scholarship', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_scholarships' or 'check_scholarship_eligibility', which would require explicit differentiation to earn a perfect 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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a scholarship ID), comparison to 'list_scholarships' for browsing, or 'check_scholarship_eligibility' for assessment. Without this 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.