Booli MCP Server

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. It mentions 'retrieve' and 'comprehensive details', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'comprehensive details' entails, leaving significant gaps in behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Retrieve comprehensive details') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, earning a high score for clarity and brevity.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output expectations, making it incomplete for optimal agent performance despite the simple context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'propertyId' well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Retrieve comprehensive details') and resource ('for a specific property'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_properties' or 'search_locations', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'search_properties' or 'search_locations'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a property ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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