followupboss-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 it 'Returns the first matching contact,' which hints at potential duplicate handling, but doesn't clarify what happens if no match is found (error vs. null), whether it's a read-only operation, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. More behavioral context is needed for a mutation-free tool.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a brief behavioral note ('Returns the first matching contact'), making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and a hint of behavior, but lacks details on error handling, exact match requirements, and differentiation from siblings, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'email' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the parameter's purpose without additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Look up a person by email address') and resource ('person'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'getPerson' (which likely uses ID) and 'listPeople' (which lists multiple people). It precisely defines the verb and scope.

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 'getPerson' (by ID) or 'listPeople' (for broader queries). The description mentions it returns the first matching contact, but doesn't specify if this is for exact matches only or how duplicates are handled relative to other tools.

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