mcp-server-ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return type ('formatted citation text') and listing 18+ supported formats, which helps agents understand output expectations beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and scope, second lists formats and return type. Well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of annotations (readOnly, non-destructive), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, formats, and return type without needing to duplicate structured data.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating 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 verb ('Export') and resource ('paper records') with specific scope ('in various citation formats'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on citation export rather than search, metrics, or other functions mentioned in the sibling list.

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 listing supported formats, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ads_citation_helper or ads_search. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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