gleif-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, repeatable operations. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that 'fuzzy matching is on by default' and describes failure conditions ('no results found') with troubleshooting advice. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, alternative tool mention, usage examples, and failure guidance. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the 'FAILS WHEN' section could be slightly more concise.

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 search tool with good annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and full parameter documentation, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, failure conditions, and distinguishes from alternatives. The main gap is lack of output format details, but with no output schema, this is a minor limitation.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'fuzzy matching' and 'pagination' which align with parameters, but adds no additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high 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 tool's purpose: 'Search for legal entities by name with fuzzy matching and pagination.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (legal entities), and key features (fuzzy matching, pagination). It also distinguishes from sibling 'autocomplete' by noting that tool is for 'quick name suggestions' instead.

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 explicit guidance with 'USE WHEN' examples ('find company X', 'search for X', 'look up company X') and 'FAILS WHEN' conditions with alternatives ('try autocomplete for name suggestions, or check spelling'). It clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus the 'autocomplete' sibling.

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