eduframe-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 but provides minimal information. It does not mention that results are paginated (despite cursor/per_page parameters existing), does not describe error behavior for invalid invoice IDs, and omits any mention of rate limits or permissions required.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and contains no wasted words. However, it may be overly concise given the lack of annotations and output schema—an additional sentence explaining pagination behavior or return structure would improve utility without sacrificing clarity.

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 list retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps. It fails to mention the paginated nature of results (implied by parameters but not stated), does not describe the return value structure (list of payment objects), and lacks differentiation from related payment tools in the sibling set.

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 (invoice_id, cursor, per_page all documented), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., explaining that cursor is for pagination or that per_page defaults to 25), but none is needed given the comprehensive 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 provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('payment records of an invoice'), accurately describing the retrieval operation. However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'get_payment' (singular) or contrast with 'create_invoice_payment_by_invoice_id', which would help the agent select the correct tool in a workflow.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus 'get_payment', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid invoice_id) or suggest using pagination parameters for large result sets.

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