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 search scope (name or code) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 immediately conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space.

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 simple search functionality, comprehensive annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. The main gap is lack of usage guidance relative to sibling 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 no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by name or code' which partially explains the 'query' parameter's purpose, but doesn't address 'limit' or 'offset' parameters at all. 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 action ('Search for courses') and the searchable attributes ('by name or code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from potential sibling search tools like 'search_faculty' or 'search_library_books' beyond specifying the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what distinguishes it from other search tools in the sibling list like 'search_faculty' or 'search_library_books'.

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