colacloud-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a search operation (implied read-only), mentions pagination behavior with defaults, and specifies partial matching for company names. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for a search tool.

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 well-structured with a clear introductory sentence, domain explanation, and organized parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with clear sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability.

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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and return values. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning authentication or rate limits, but overall it's quite comprehensive.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in detail. It clarifies that 'q' uses partial matching, 'state' requires two-letter codes, 'is_active' filters by permit status, and provides default values and constraints for pagination parameters. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool searches for permit holders (companies authorized to produce/import alcohol) and distinguishes them from other entities like COLAs. It specifies the resource (permit holders/businesses) and verb (search) with domain context about federal permits.

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 clear context about what permittees are and their relationship to COLAs, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_colas' and 'get_permittee'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the 'get_permittee' tool for individual lookups.

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