Anchord MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses batch limit (200), correlation requirement, and crucial ambiguous match behavior ('needs_review with candidate AnchorIDs'). Missing operational details like rate limits or idempotency, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 defines purpose + limits, sentence 2 states input requirements, sentence 3 explains edge case behavior. Appropriately front-loaded and dense with actionable 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?

Complex nested input schema with 100% coverage handled well. No output schema provided, but description compensates by explaining both success case ('Resolve... to AnchorIDs') and ambiguous case ('needs_review'). Could clarify 'not_found' behavior but covers primary scenarios.

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% per context signals, establishing baseline 3. Description adds conceptual grouping ('at least one identifying field') which helps interpret the various ID parameters, but schema already documents client_ref purpose and array structure.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Resolve') + resource ('people to AnchorIDs') + scope ('multiple', 'max 200'). The batch nature and item limit explicitly distinguish this from the singular sibling tool 'resolve_person'.

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?

Clear context for batch use ('in a single call', 'max 200'). Specifies input constraints ('Each item needs a client_ref', 'at least one identifying field'). Lacks explicit mention of singular alternative 'resolve_person' for single lookups.

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