MCP RifaExpress Backend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('obtiene'), but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given that this tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like, whether authentication is required, or any other behavioral context. For a tool with zero structured metadata, the description should provide more operational information to be considered complete.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the 'isActive' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist in the schema documentation.

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 'Obtiene plans de suscripción' clearly states the verb ('obtiene' - gets) and resource ('plans de suscripción' - subscription plans), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'rifaexpress_get_subscriptions' or 'rifaexpress_get_companies' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what distinguishes getting subscription plans from getting subscriptions themselves (via rifaexpress_get_subscriptions) or when filtering by active status might be appropriate. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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