eve-online-traffic-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with potentially incomplete data. The description adds value by specifying the data source ('stargate data') and the output type ('map of system connections'), which aren't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, and provides useful context beyond them.

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 purpose ('Get a map of system connections') and adds necessary context ('by analyzing stargate data for given solar systems'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the data source, but doesn't detail the output format or map structure. With annotations covering safety and data completeness, and schema fully documenting the parameter, the description provides adequate context, though could benefit from output details.

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%, with the parameter 'systemIds' fully documented in the schema (including format, constraints, and conversion guidance). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get a map of system connections'), resource ('stargate data'), and scope ('for given solar systems'). It distinguishes from siblings like calculate_route or find_systems_in_range by focusing on connection mapping rather than routing or proximity analysis.

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 (analyzing stargate data for solar systems) and the input schema provides guidance on converting names to IDs using a sibling tool (solar_system_name_to_id). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_systems_in_range or calculate_route, nor does it mention exclusions.

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