mcp__getD2c

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It details side effects (writing files to disk, avoiding large resources in context), which is commendable. However, it does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or reversibility, preventing a perfect score.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a numbered list for clarity. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., restating resourcePath in step 2). Still, it is well-structured for an agent to parse.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers inputs, outputs (a summary), and side effects. It addresses potential context overflow by omitting large resources. For a tool of moderate complexity, this is sufficient but not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of return format or error states).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds significant context: it explains the role of contentId and documentId with examples, and clarifies outDir as optional. This goes beyond mere schema replication, adding practical meaning for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool fetches D2C data from MasterGo and persists it locally, including writing code to HTML and saving SVG/image resources. It well specifies the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mcp__C2d or mcp__extractSvg.

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 lists steps but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the context of D2C data retrieval, but lack of explicit guidance hurts score.

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