eduframe-mcp

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—no information on what the 'record' contains, caching behavior, or return structure.

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?

Extremely brief at four words with no filler. While efficient, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise—front-loading is impossible with so little content, but there is no structural 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?

Without an output schema, the description should indicate what data is returned or what a 'catalog product' represents. It also omits the critical distinction from 'get_catalog_products'. Given the rich sibling tool ecosystem, this description is insufficient for proper tool selection.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage ('ID of the catalog product to retrieve'), so the schema carries the full burden. The description mentions no parameters, but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema documentation.

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 states the basic action ('Get') and resource ('catalog product record'), but is vague regarding scope. It fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_catalog_products' (plural) or clarify that this retrieves a single specific record by ID versus a list.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus 'get_catalog_products' or other retrieval tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid product ID from a previous search) or error conditions.

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