llmconveyors-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Successfully covers safety ('Read-only, no side effects') and authentication ('Requires scope: settings:read'). Minor gap: doesn't describe error cases or explicit return format structure (object vs array), though it lists the expected data fields.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste: (1) Purpose and data fields, (2) Usage context, (3) Safety/auth + sibling distinction. Information density is high and front-loaded appropriately.

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?

Compensates well for missing annotations and output schema by listing expected return data fields. Includes critical scope requirement. Minor deduction for not mentioning error conditions or rate limiting, though this is acceptable for a simple read-only endpoint with no parameters.

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 contains 0 parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 parameters equals baseline score of 4. No parameter documentation needed.

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 'Get' + resource 'referral program statistics' with clear scope (current user). Lists specific return fields (total referrals, conversions, credits). Effectively distinguishes from sibling 'referral-code' (which gets the shareable link, not statistics).

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: 'check referral performance or display earnings.' Provides clear alternative action: 'Use referral-code to get the shareable referral link.' Also includes prerequisite 'Requires scope: settings:read.' This is exactly the specificity needed for sibling differentiation.

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