OSINT MCP Server

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 data source ('Apollo.io') and enrichment fields, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear 'Args' section. It is appropriately sized with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for enrichment fields). Every sentence adds value, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. For a data enrichment tool with no annotations, it should do more to be fully complete.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'domain' parameter as 'Company website domain,' adding semantic meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. Since there is only one parameter, the description effectively compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, though it could provide more detail (e.g., format examples).

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: 'Enrich company data using Apollo.io - size, industry, tech stack.' It specifies the verb ('enrich'), resource ('company data'), and source ('Apollo.io'), with concrete examples of enrichment fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'osint_company_people' or 'osint_company_research', which prevents a score of 5.

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 lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'osint_company_people' for personnel data or 'osint_company_research' for broader research). This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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