llmconveyors-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses 'Read-only, no side effects' and auth requirements ('Requires scope: settings:read'). Minor gap: doesn't describe return structure or behavior when user lacks a referral code.

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?

Six sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with action (Get code/link), followed by usage intent, safety profile, auth scope, and sibling alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Comprehensive for a read-only getter: covers purpose, usage, auth, safety, and alternatives. Minor deduction because no output schema exists and description doesn't explicitly specify the return value structure (e.g., object fields for code vs link).

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?

Zero parameters present, which sets baseline to 4 per rubric. Description correctly avoids discussing parameters since none exist, and no compensation is needed given the empty 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 opens with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('current user's referral code and shareable referral link'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings referral-vanity-code (customization) and referral-stats (performance metrics).

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 names two sibling alternatives with specific use cases: 'To customize the code, use referral-vanity-code' and 'To check referral performance, use referral-stats.' Also states the specific use case: 'for sharing with others.'

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