Salesloft MCP Demo Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('List') and specifies default and max values for 'limit', which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for a tool with filtering capabilities.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bullet-point style in the text enhances readability. It efficiently conveys necessary information in a compact format.

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 (3 parameters, filtering functionality) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: JSON array'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers input semantics and output format, but lacks behavioral context like error cases or usage comparisons with siblings, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that 'company' uses partial match and is case-insensitive, 'deal_stage' includes example values, and 'limit' has a default and max. This clarifies usage significantly, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like format constraints for parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'List available call transcripts with optional filtering.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('call transcripts'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_call' (likely for single call) or 'search_calls' (possibly more advanced search), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 'search_calls' or 'get_call'. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone. This lack of comparative context reduces its effectiveness.

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