mcp-server-ads

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

Annotations indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying the types of links resolved (e.g., 'full text, data, citations'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details beyond what annotations provide.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with relevant examples. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality and link types, though it could benefit from more usage context or behavioral details to fully compensate for the lack of explicit guidelines.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters ('bibcode' and 'link_type'), including their purposes and default behavior. The description adds minimal semantic context by listing examples of link types ('full text, data, citations, etc.'), but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline score for high coverage.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('available links for a paper') with specific examples of link types ('full text, data, citations, etc.'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'ads_resolve_reference', which might handle similar resolution tasks, leaving some ambiguity about when to use one over the other.

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, such as sibling tools like 'ads_resolve_reference' or 'ads_search'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement without usage scenarios.

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