UAAR University MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. The description adds value by mentioning the optional filtering capability, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters) or rate limits.

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 states the core purpose upfront and includes the optional filtering capability. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text, making it easy for an AI agent to parse 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 has comprehensive annotations covering safety and behavior, an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and the tool's purpose is straightforward (list operation with filtering), the description provides adequate context. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling scholarship-related tools.

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 only parameter names and types without descriptions. The description mentions 'Optionally filter by provider' which explains the purpose of one parameter, but doesn't address the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters for pagination control. This provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('available scholarships'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_scholarship_details' or 'check_scholarship_eligibility', which would require more specific differentiation.

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 minimal guidance with 'Optionally filter by provider' but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_scholarship_details' for specific scholarship information or 'check_scholarship_eligibility' for eligibility assessment. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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