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 only mentions filtering capabilities but fails to describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly invoke and interpret results.

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 - a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and key capabilities without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently lists the filtering options, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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?

For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't describe the return format, pagination, sorting options, or any behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for proper tool usage remains incomplete, especially given the lack of output information.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value by listing the filterable fields (company_id, type, status) but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('media items') with specific examples (earnings calls, podcasts, etc.), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_briefs' or 'get_company' which might also retrieve media-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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 mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other list/search tools on the server, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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