FDEP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'execute' which implies a read operation but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description lacks details on return format, error handling, or performance characteristics for complex queries.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every part of the description contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool with complex nested parameters (as indicated by context signals) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'advanced conditions,' how joins work, what the tool returns, or error scenarios. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter with its nested structure. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'JSON-based queries with joins and advanced conditions,' which aligns with but doesn't significantly expand upon the schema's documentation of conditions and joins.

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 as executing 'complex JSON-based queries with joins and advanced conditions,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_query' or 'execute_custom_query,' leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific advanced version.

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 like 'execute_query' or 'execute_custom_query' from the sibling list. It mentions 'complex' queries but doesn't define what makes a query complex enough to warrant this tool, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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