eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations correctly declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It fails to disclose pagination behavior, whether 'all' includes expired/inactive codes, or return value 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 maximally concise at four words with zero redundancy. It leads with the action verb and immediately identifies the resource, placing critical information first with no filler content.

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?

For a simple list retrieval tool with good annotations and optional pagination parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on handling large result sets, pagination traversal, or output format, leaving operational gaps.

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 (cursor and per_page are fully documented in the schema), the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It neither adds nor detracts from the schema definitions, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('discount codes') and includes scope ('all'). However, it does not differentiate from potential sibling tools (e.g., if a singular 'get_discount_code' existed) or clarify filtering limitations as seen in higher-quality descriptions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention pagination patterns despite the presence of cursor/per_page parameters. It states only what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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