eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It does not disclose what happens when the invoice ID is not found (error vs null), what fields are returned, or any rate limiting considerations.

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 brief (4 words), but it suffers from under-specification rather than efficient information density. The single sentence does not earn its place by conveying unique value—it merely repeats the function name.

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 presence of multiple sibling invoice tools and no output schema, the description should explain the return structure or distinguish this from related operations. It provides insufficient context for an agent to confidently select this tool over get_invoice_pdf or other invoice getters.

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 invoice to retrieve'), the description meets the baseline expectation. However, the description text itself contributes no additional parameter semantics (e.g., where to find the ID, format requirements beyond the schema).

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 'Get an invoice record' is tautological—it restates the tool name 'get_invoice' without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish from siblings like get_invoice_pdf, get_invoice_vats, or get_invoice_payments_by_invoice_id, leaving the agent uncertain which invoice-related tool to use.

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 alternatives. The description does not indicate whether this retrieves the full invoice details, how it differs from get_invoice_pdf (which gets a PDF representation), or when to use create_invoice instead.

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