llmconveyors-mcp

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

Discloses rate limiting (10 req/min) and authorization requirements (jobs:write or sales:write) despite no annotations. Explains workflow context (phased, requires waiting for input). Minor gap: doesn't describe idempotency or what happens if invoked when not awaiting_input, but covers primary operational concerns well.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage condition/examples, then operational constraints. Each sentence delivers distinct, non-redundant information without repeating schema details.

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?

Adequate for a workflow continuation tool with no annotations. Explains the state machine relationship (agent-status → awaiting_input → agent-interact) and operational constraints. Minor gap: no output schema means return values are unexplained, though this is common for action tools.

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 has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds crucial workflow context beyond schema field descriptions, specifically explaining that interactionType/interactionData originate from the awaiting_input response and reinforcing the relationship between generationId/sessionId and the status/run responses.

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?

Specific verb ('Submit a response') and resource ('phased agent workflow') with clear scope (awaiting_input states). Explicitly distinguishes from agent-status (which returns the status) and the run commands (job-hunter-run, b2b-sales-run) by specifying this is for continuation, not initiation.

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?

Explicit when-to-use condition ('Used when agent-status returns status=awaiting_input'), prerequisite mention ('agent-status'), and source of input values ('interactionType and interactionData fields come from the awaiting_input response'). Provides concrete examples (contact selection, draft approval).

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