Iconsult 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 describes the return format ('workflow phase progress, recommended next tool call, step summary, recent event alerts, shared state entries') and the tool's role in workflow guidance. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Track' implies reading). For a tool with no annotations, this provides useful context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences. The first sentence clearly states purpose and return values. The second sentence provides usage timing. Every element earns its place with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool with clear functionality.

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 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool returns (progress metrics, recommendations, summaries, alerts, state entries) which compensates for the missing output schema. For a workflow guidance tool, this covers the essential context about what information agents will receive. However, it doesn't mention error handling or edge cases.

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 parameter 'consultation_id' with its description. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Track consultation progress and suggest the next action.' It specifies the verb ('Track', 'suggest') and resource ('consultation progress'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'plan_consultation' or 'consultation_report' by focusing on progress tracking and guidance rather than planning or reporting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_events' or 'read_state', which could also track progress-related 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 clear usage context: 'Call after each major step for guided workflow.' This gives explicit timing guidance. It doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context implies it's for ongoing consultation tracking rather than initial planning or final reporting, which helps differentiate from tools like 'plan_consultation' and 'consultation_report'.

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