Multi MCP

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. 'Add two numbers' implies a simple computation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, input validation, or performance characteristics. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action ('Add') without any wasted text. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (a simple addition function) and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, behavior, or return values. For such a straightforward tool, this might be adequate, but it doesn't provide full context for reliable agent invocation.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description 'Add two numbers' implies two numeric inputs, adding semantic meaning about what the tool expects, which compensates for the lack of schema parameters. However, it doesn't specify parameter names or formats, so it's not fully detailed.

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 'Add two numbers' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('two numbers'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling 'calculator__multiply', which performs a different arithmetic operation, so it doesn't fully achieve 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'calculator__multiply' for multiplication needs or 'weather__get_weather' for unrelated tasks, nor does it specify any context or prerequisites for addition operations.

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