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. 'List deals with filtering' implies a read operation but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise at just 4 words, with no wasted language. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise. Still, every word earns its place by conveying core functionality.

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?

Incomplete for a complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema. The description doesn't explain what a 'deal' represents in this context, what fields are typically returned, or how results are structured. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and results.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond mentioning 'filtering' generally. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 deals with filtering' states the basic action (list) and resource (deals) but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify whether this lists all deals or has implicit limitations, and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'getDeal' or 'searchPeopleByTag' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions filtering but doesn't specify when filtering is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose other list/search tools. With many sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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