report_mcpize_link

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations, listing the return values (status, message, tool_id, upgrade_url) and including an example call. This supplements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations well, though it could further clarify edge cases.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short lines that front-load the main purpose, then succinctly describe the parameter and return values. Every sentence serves a clear function with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an existing output schema (implied but not provided), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, parameter usage, and return fields, and includes an example. It does not cover error handling or corner cases, but given the simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'tool_id' with a detailed description. The description repeats this information almost verbatim, adding no new semantic insight beyond the schema. Thus a baseline score of 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 and specifically states the tool's function: 'Check MCPize subscription status for a DataNexus tool.' It uses a precise verb-resource pair and distinguishes the tool from its many siblings (none of which perform this check).

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 context on when to use the tool by stating 'Pass the tool the user is asking about,' implying it should be used when a user inquires about a specific tool's subscription. It does not, however, explicitly list alternatives or counter-indications, which would elevate the score.

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