eduframe-mcp

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

While annotations declare the operation as read-only and idempotent, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It fails to disclose that results are paginated (contradicting the 'all' claim) or explain the data structure of VAT records.

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 (four words), but 'all' creates ambiguity given the pagination support. It is efficiently structured but under-specified regarding the actual behavior of the endpoint.

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 endpoint with pagination support, the description inadequately explains the pagination mechanism or the scope of returned data. The misleading 'all' claim combined with no mention of output structure leaves significant gaps despite the simple parameter schema.

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 for both parameters (cursor and per_page), the schema carries the semantic burden. The description mentions no parameters, which is acceptable given the baseline for high-coverage schemas, though it misses the opportunity to explain the pagination workflow.

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 ('invoice vat records'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'create_invoice_vat'. However, the claim 'all' is misleading given the pagination parameters (cursor, per_page) exist, and it fails to clarify what constitutes a 'VAT record' or its relationship to invoices.

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_invoice' or 'create_invoice_vat'. There is no mention of pagination patterns or prerequisites for using the cursor parameter.

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