equivault-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a 'count-based summary' with breakdowns, but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a count-based summary of signals for a company') and adds specific details ('breakdowns by type and severity, plus unread count') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple single-parameter query), high schema coverage (100%), and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but does not cover behavioral aspects like safety or performance, which are important for a tool with no annotations. It meets basic needs but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'company_id' parameter documented as 'Company ID from search_companies'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a count-based summary of signals for a company' with specific breakdowns by type, severity, and unread count. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('signals for a company'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_signals' or 'get_signal_dashboard', which likely provide different views of signals data.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_signals' or 'get_signal_dashboard', nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios based on the tool name alone.

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