Greenhouse MCP

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 implies a read-only operation ('List all'), but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits or constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks depth for full contextual understanding, though not critically so.

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 description mentions 'a specific question set' which maps to the single parameter 'question_set_id', but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add details like format or constraints beyond what's implied. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description provides minimal extra value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List all demographic questions') and the target resource ('belonging to a specific question set'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_questions' or 'list_question_sets' that might handle different scopes of questions, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 like 'list_questions' or 'list_question_sets', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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