SORACOM Data Reader MCP

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 adds some context beyond the schema: it specifies the maximum limit (1000), explains pagination behavior with 'last_evaluated_key', and describes the return format. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'get').

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by combining some explanations, but the structure is effective and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 (6 parameters, pagination, time filtering) and no annotations, the description does well. It explains all parameters thoroughly and mentions the return format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. The main gap is lack of sibling tool differentiation, but otherwise it's reasonably complete for this data retrieval tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It successfully documents all 6 parameters with clear explanations: 'imsi' as SIM identifier, time parameters as UNIX timestamps in milliseconds, 'sort' with enum values explained, 'limit' with maximum constraint, and 'last_evaluated_key' for pagination. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: '特定SIMのHarvest Dataを取得します' (Retrieve Harvest Data for a specific SIM). It specifies the verb '取得します' (retrieve) and resource 'Harvest Data', but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_harvest_data_by_resource' or 'list_harvest_files', which likely have different filtering or output approaches.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over others like 'get_harvest_data_by_resource' or 'list_harvest_files'. Usage is implied only through the parameter descriptions, not explicit contextual guidance.

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