MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it's a search operation (not a mutation) and specifies exact matching behavior. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if multiple users share the same name. The return format is vaguely described as 'a dictionary containing the user information if found, otherwise a message with no user found,' which is helpful but lacks detail on structure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a brief clarification on exact matching. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose (e.g., mentioning 'ctx' which may be implicit). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavior but lacks depth. It covers the core operation and return indication, but doesn't address authentication, errors, or detailed output structure. For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that 'name' is 'The name of the user to locate' and that it's an exact match. However, it doesn't clarify format (e.g., full name, case sensitivity, encoding) or constraints beyond exact matching, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Locate a user by their name. This is an exact match search.' It specifies the verb ('locate'), resource ('user'), and search type ('exact match'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool' or 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool', which would require a 5.

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 implies usage context by stating 'exact match search,' suggesting this tool should be used when the exact name is known rather than for partial matches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool' or 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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