nist-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds useful context by explaining the 'supersedes chain' behavior, which isn't covered by annotations, but it doesn't detail other traits like error handling or performance. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a usage guideline, with no wasted words. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and when to apply it, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, read-only, idempotent), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose and usage, and with an output schema present, there's no need to detail return values. The annotations cover safety aspects, making the description adequately contextual.

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 'publication_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('Resolve any publication to its newest available revision') and the resource ('publication'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_publication' or 'search_publications' by focusing on revision resolution rather than retrieval or search. The phrase 'Follows the supersedes chain' adds precision about the method.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when you need the most current version of a document'), providing clear context for its application. It implies an alternative to tools like 'get_publication' by specifying the need for the 'newest available revision' rather than just any version.

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