Iconsult 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. It discloses that the tool returns one entry if a key is specified or all entries if omitted, which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, performance, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first part states the core purpose, the second explains parameter behavior, and the third provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the return behavior based on the key parameter. However, for a tool that reads shared state in a consultation system, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or coordination specifics, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'key' parameter's effect on output (single vs. all entries), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies.

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 reads shared state from a consultation, specifying the resource (shared state) and action (read). It distinguishes from the sibling 'write_state' by indicating this is a read operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'get_events' or 'get_subgraph' that might also retrieve data.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use for subagent coordination and progress tracking' suggests a specific context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_events' or 'get_subgraph', 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.