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 adds some context: the search is case-insensitive and covers all transcript content, and it specifies default and max values for 'limit'. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a search operation.

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 purpose, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value without waste, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand 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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks usage guidelines and some behavioral details like error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but gaps remain.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' is case-insensitive and searches all transcript content, and specifies 'limit' as maximum excerpts with default and max values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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: 'Search for keywords across all call transcripts.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('call transcripts') with scope ('all'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_call' or 'list_calls', which prevents a score of 5.

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 'get_call' or 'list_calls'. It mentions searching 'all call transcripts' but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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