Anchord MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: the 200-item limit, correlation mechanism via client_ref, validation rule requiring at least one identifying field per item, and the specific return behavior for ambiguous matches (candidate AnchorIDs with needs_review status).

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 efficient two-sentence structure. First sentence establishes purpose and scale limits; second sentence covers input requirements and output behavior. Zero redundancy—every clause conveys essential operational information.

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 batch resolution tool with complex nested items and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential contract: input validation rules and return status behaviors (needs_review with candidates). Minor gap in not explicitly listing which fields count as 'identifying fields' (domain, name, identifiers object, etc.).

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?

While the schema describes the top-level structure, the description adds critical semantic constraints not captured in the schema: the requirement for 'at least one identifying field' (business logic not enforced by schema validation) and the purpose of client_ref ('for correlation'). It does not fully enumerate what constitutes an 'identifying field' or explain min_confidence, but adds significant value beyond the 100% top-level schema coverage.

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 (resolve), resource (companies), output format (AnchorIDs), and batch nature (max 200). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'resolve_company' (single item) and 'resolve_person_batch' (different entity type) through explicit scoping.

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?

Provides clear operational constraints (max 200 items, client_ref requirement, need for identifying fields) and explains ambiguous match handling (needs_review status). Could be improved by explicitly stating when to prefer this over the single-item 'resolve_company' alternative, though this is implicitly clear.

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