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, effectively disclosing key behavioral traits: processing time (~15 minutes), notification mechanism (two SMS messages), and cost (1 credit). It omits idempotency or error handling 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?

Four tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: purpose, timing, notifications, and cost. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter complexity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete, covering the user journey (order → SMS confirmation → SMS completion). It could strengthen by noting the prerequisite check for credits.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description text does not add parameter-specific semantics (e.g., explaining markdown format or productId sourcing), relying entirely on the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Place') and clear resource ('order for a tailored CV and cover letter'), immediately distinguishing it from the read-only sibling tools get_credits and get_pricing.

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 mentions 'Costs 1 credit per order,' implying a prerequisite to check credits, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or a required workflow (e.g., calling get_pricing first to obtain the productId).

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