nist-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context with the example query but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns beyond the schema. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little value beyond them.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful example. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse 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 has annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for a search tool. It specifies the resource (NICE Framework work roles) and provides an example, though it could better explain the search scope or result format. The presence of structured data reduces the burden on the description.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it mentions 'incident response' as an example but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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 searches NICE Framework work roles with a specific example query. It uses the verb 'search' with the resource 'NICE Framework work roles', making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like search_controls or search_cves beyond mentioning the NICE Framework.

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 gives an example query but doesn't mention when to choose this over other search tools (like search_controls or search_cves) or when not to use it. There are no prerequisites or contextual usage instructions.

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