truthstack-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what data is returned (interactions, research findings, aliases) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic output content.

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 action ('Get detailed compound profile') and lists key content areas without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what the tool does, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and output content but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error cases, or how it integrates with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context on return values or operational constraints would improve completeness, but it meets basic requirements.

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 100%, with the parameter 'compound_id' fully documented in the schema as 'Compound ID from search_compounds'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 compound profile') with specific content areas (interactions, research findings, aliases). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_compounds' (search vs. get detailed profile) and 'check_interactions' (check vs. get full profile), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could more directly contrast with alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied through the parameter 'compound_id from search_compounds', suggesting this tool is used after searching to get detailed info. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. siblings like 'get_evidence' or 'explain_interaction', nor any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The context is clear but lacks direct alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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