UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying 'today' as the temporal scope, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like response format, pagination, or error handling, which are relevant given the output schema exists but isn't detailed here.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and scope efficiently. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less tool.

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 (0 parameters, annotations provided, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'classes' entail (e.g., format, fields) or how 'today' is determined (e.g., timezone), which could be helpful despite the output schema covering return values.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, so it meets the baseline for this condition without needing compensation.

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 ('classes scheduled for today'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_class_schedule', which might be a broader or different version of class retrieval, leaving room for potential confusion.

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_class_schedule' or other scheduling tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as user authentication or date/time considerations, which could affect its applicability.

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