IOL MCP Tool

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 states this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, fields). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a purpose statement and a parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the main action, and there's no wasted text, though the parameter section could be more integrated for better flow.

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 complexity (a read tool with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential errors, or how this differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal semantics by explaining 'operation_number' as 'The operation number to query', but this is basic and doesn't clarify format (e.g., integer range, examples) or context (e.g., where to find this number). With 1 parameter and low coverage, it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific IOL operation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_operations' or 'get_historical_data', which might also retrieve operation-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 doesn't mention when to choose it over siblings like 'get_operations' (which might list multiple operations) or 'get_historical_data' (which could include operation details in a historical context), leaving the agent without usage context.

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