MCP Analytics

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the search mechanism ('semantic search') and corpus size ('50+'), but omits critical behavioral details: return format (tool IDs? names? descriptions?), result cardinality, and whether the search is fuzzy or exact. No safety or performance characteristics mentioned.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Find'. First sentence defines purpose and parameter mapping; second sentence discloses mechanism and scope. Every word 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?

While appropriate for a simple 2-parameter tool, the absence of annotations and output schema creates an information gap. The description should ideally disclose return value structure (list of tool metadata?) since no output schema exists to document this. Adequate but not fully self-describing.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the relationship between 'data/question' and the parameters, but adds no syntax guidance, format examples, or semantic constraints (e.g., whether dataset UUID is required when query is provided) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Find' (verb) + 'analysis tools' (resource) + 'semantic search' (mechanism) clearly distinguishes this from sibling execution tools like tools_run and static listing tools like tools_info. The scope '50+ statistical and ML tools' precisely defines the domain.

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?

Provides implicit context via 'matching your data or question' which maps to the two parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus tools_info (browse all) or tools_run (direct execution). Does not clarify that both parameters are optional despite the schema showing zero required fields.

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