llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden and excellently discloses: read-only nature ('no side effects'), authorization requirements ('Requires scope: resume:read'), and return value structure ('label, raw text, and structured data').

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?

Four to five tightly constructed sentences with logical flow: operation→return values→contextual purpose→safety/auth→alternatives. Every clause provides necessary information without 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?

Despite no output schema, description fully explains return payload. Covers authentication, safety profile, and workflow integration (job-hunter-run). Complete for a zero-parameter read operation.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline score is 4. Description correctly requires no parameter explanation since the schema is empty.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'master resume' and distinguishes from siblings by referencing master-resume-upsert for create/update operations, clearly positioning this as the retrieval counterpart.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('review... before running job-hunter-run') and provides direct alternative ('Use master-resume-upsert to create or update'), offering clear workflow guidance and sibling differentiation.

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