followupboss-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List appointments' reveals nothing about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in schema), whether results are sorted, or what format the output takes. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool actually behaves.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to communicate essential information that would help an agent use the tool correctly, making it inefficient despite its short length.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, what permissions are needed, or how it differs from related tools. This leaves critical gaps for an agent trying to use the tool effectively.

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, all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds zero information about parameters, not even mentioning that filtering or pagination options exist. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description provides no additional semantic context.

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 'List appointments' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of appointments, from what system, or provide any distinguishing characteristics from sibling tools like 'getAppointment' or 'listAppointmentTypes'.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'getAppointment' (singular retrieval) and 'listAppointmentTypes' (metadata listing), the agent has no indication whether this tool is for bulk retrieval, filtered searches, or general listing.

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