Booli MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (especially problematic since there's no output schema). The phrase 'comprehensive filtering options' hints at functionality but lacks concrete behavioral details.

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 immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place - 'Search for properties' establishes the action, 'on Booli.se' specifies the context, and 'with comprehensive filtering options' hints at the tool's capabilities without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex tool with 20 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results are returned, how filtering works in practice, or provide any context about the Booli.se platform. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to help an agent understand how to effectively use this search functionality.

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, the schema already documents all 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, filtering logic, or provide usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search for properties') and resource ('on Booli.se'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from 'get_property_details' by focusing on search rather than retrieval of specific details, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_locations' which might be a related search function.

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_locations' or 'get_property_details'. It mentions 'comprehensive filtering options' but doesn't explain when these filters are appropriate or what scenarios warrant this search tool over others.

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