equivault-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the list returns (e.g., pagination, sorting), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when both filters are provided. For a list operation 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 perfectly concise - two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, the second explains the filtering options. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.

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 moderate complexity (listing with optional filters), 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and the filtering options but leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented. For a list operation, the agent would need to know about pagination, return format, and other behavioral characteristics that aren't addressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it restates that company_id filters by company and followed filters by followed companies, but doesn't provide additional context about how these interact or which takes precedence. The baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'list' and resource 'investment briefs', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_brief' (which presumably retrieves a single brief) or 'research_report' (which might be similar content). The description is specific about what it lists but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning two filtering options (company_id and followed), suggesting when to use each parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_brief' (for single briefs) or 'search_companies' (for broader company searches). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided.

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