eduframe-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the qualifier 'awarded', indicating the tool retrieves issued certificates rather than templates, which provides useful context given the sibling 'award_certificate_to_program_enrollment'. However, it omits details about error handling (e.g., 404 if ID not found) 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?

The description is extremely brief (four words) and front-loaded, containing no redundant or wasted language. However, its extreme brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should ideally explain what certificate data is returned or clarify the singular vs. plural retrieval distinction. As written, it provides the bare minimum for a simple getter but leaves critical contextual gaps for effective tool invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('ID of the certificate to retrieve'), the baseline score applies. The description adds no supplementary parameter semantics (e.g., that the ID refers to an awarded certificate ID specifically), but the schema documentation is sufficient.

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 provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('awarded certificate'), establishing the basic operation. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_certificates' (plural), leaving ambiguity about when to use the single-ID retrieval versus the list operation.

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 like 'get_certificates' or 'award_certificate_to_program_enrollment'. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria to guide the agent's selection.

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