ReftrixMCP

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

Annotations indicate read-only/idempotent operations, which the description supports by emphasizing 'counts' and 'classification' rather than mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the return format (counts per value) and intended UX pattern (refinement UI) not present in annotations.

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?

Exceptionally well-structured: deprecation warning front-loaded, followed by concise bilingual explanation of functionality, use case, and exact replacement syntax. Despite supporting two languages, there is no redundant information—every clause serves a distinct purpose (status, function, migration).

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values conceptually ('counts per value'). Given the tool's deprecated status, the detailed migration path provided is more valuable than exhaustive return value documentation, though explicit return structure details would have warranted a 5.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 7 parameters including field descriptions and enums. The description references the facet fields conceptually but does not add syntax details or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 defines the tool's purpose using specific verbs ('classifies', 'returning counts') and resources (search results by sectionType, industry, audience, tags). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by explicitly identifying search.unified as the replacement.

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?

Excellent guidance provided: explicitly marked as DEPRECATED with a clear 'when-not-to-use' directive, and provides exact parameter mappings for the alternative (search.unified with include_facets: true, enable_reranking: false, etc.). Also specifies the UI use case ('refinement UI and filter selection').

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