Tripletex MCP 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 states the tool searches by date range but doesn't mention other behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied by 'search'), what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, the format of results (e.g., list of invoices), or pagination details (though parameters hint at it). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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: 'Search incoming (supplier) invoices by date range.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a search tool. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and result format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely heavily on the input schema and trial-and-error. It's complete enough to avoid being useless but has clear gaps for effective tool selection.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., date formats, filtering options, pagination). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions date range filtering but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 incoming (supplier) invoices by date range.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('incoming (supplier) invoices'), and scope ('by date range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_invoices' or 'get_supplier_invoice', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_invoices' (which might search all invoices) or 'get_supplier_invoice' (which might retrieve a single invoice), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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