equivault-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool builds a report 'in one call' but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, processing time, or error handling. The description does not contradict annotations, but it fails to disclose critical operational aspects for a comprehensive tool.

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 front-loaded and efficient, using a single sentence that lists key components without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, such as specifying 'full deep-dive' and 'ready for rendering as a report,' making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (building a comprehensive report) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It outlines what the tool does but misses details on output format, error cases, or dependencies. However, it adequately covers the high-level purpose and scope, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 company_id documented as 'Company ID from search_companies.' The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it does not explain parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Build a comprehensive research report for a company' with specific components listed (profile, financials, metrics, narrative, recent signals, related briefs). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'all in one call' versus tools like get_financials or get_metrics that fetch individual components.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'all in one call, ready for rendering as a report,' suggesting it should be used when a consolidated report is needed rather than separate API calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using get_company for basic info instead.

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