followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks for duplicates but doesn't describe what 'check' entails—whether it's a read-only lookup, what the return format is (e.g., boolean, person details), error handling, or performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Check if a person already exists by email or phone'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant words, and fits the tool's straightforward nature perfectly. Every word earns its place.

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 simple lookup tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, return format) and usage context. It meets the bare minimum for a basic check operation but doesn't provide enough context for optimal agent use.

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, with both parameters ('email' and 'phone') clearly documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these are the criteria for duplicate checking. However, it doesn't clarify if both parameters are required, if one suffices, or how conflicts are resolved. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Check if a person already exists by email or phone'. It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('person'), and criteria ('by email or phone'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPerson' or 'getPersonByEmail', which appear to retrieve existing person data rather than checking for duplicates specifically.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether it's used before creating a person), exclusions (e.g., what happens if both email and phone are provided), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'getPersonByEmail' or 'listPeople'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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