Iconsult MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it performs BFS traversal, returns nodes and edges, includes relationship types for discovery (alternative_to, requires, etc.), and mentions logging for coverage tracking. However, it doesn't specify rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics, leaving some gaps.

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 core functionality, uses bullet-like structure for relationship types, and every sentence adds value (e.g., traversal method, usage context, logging). No wasted words, efficiently conveying necessary information in three focused sentences.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters context. However, it lacks details on output format (nodes/edges structure) and error cases, which could be important for a tool with complex traversal logic.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of traversal (to discover what users are missing via relationship types) and linking concept_ids to match_concepts/list_concepts, providing context beyond schema. It doesn't detail individual parameters but enhances overall parameter understanding.

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 performs 'bounded graph traversal from seed concepts' using BFS up to max_hops, returning reachable nodes and edges. It specifies the exact operation (traversal), resource (graph/concepts), and distinguishes from siblings like list_concepts (which lists concepts) or match_concepts (which matches concepts).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Given one or more concept IDs (from match_concepts or list_concepts)' and provides guidance on relationship types to discover what users are missing (e.g., alternative_to, requires). It also mentions passing consultation_id for logging, indicating integration with other tools like match_concepts.

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