mcp_compliance_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the cross-catalog search behavior and the multi-entry case ('a shared id whose criteria differ is explained once per suite'), which tells the agent the response may contain more than one explanation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the scoping rule. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get elsewhere in a single read.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup with fully documented schema and annotations, the description covers the missing piece an agent would otherwise lack: what happens when the spec version is omitted and how overlapping IDs are reported.

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 coverage is 100%; both testId and specVersion are documented in the schema, including the omit-to-search-all behavior and per-version ID examples. The description adds only the per-suite de-duplication nuance, which is more about result shape than parameter meaning, so the schema remains the primary source.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('a specific compliance test ID') and scopes the output to 'what it checks and why it matters'. That is clear enough to act on, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling mcp_compliance_test (run vs. explain), leaving the agent to infer the split from the names alone.

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?

It gives an explicit decision rule for the optional parameter: 'pass specVersion to read one catalog, or omit it to search both'. That tells the agent exactly when to narrow vs. broaden scope, though it offers no guidance on when to reach for this tool rather than executing the test.

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