Next Role MCP Proxy

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 successfully explains the business logic (career phases) and workflow ordering (must precede place_order), but lacks technical behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, cached, or rate-limited, and provides only high-level description of return values without structural details.

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 consists of three efficiently structured sentences: the first defines the core action, the second provides business context for selection, and the third states the workflow prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining that the tool returns 'career-level tiers and their product IDs'. Combined with the explicit workflow integration (prerequisite for place_order), this provides sufficient context for a zero-parameter lookup tool, though specific return structure details would strengthen it further.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not mention parameters since none exist.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'career-level tiers and their product IDs' using the specific verb 'Get'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining its role as a prerequisite for place_order (getting productId), clearly differentiating it from get_credits.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'You must call this before placing an order to get the correct productId.' It also includes selection criteria ('customer should pick the tier that best matches where they are in their career'), giving clear context on when and how to use the results.

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