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 only states what the tool does (gets users with filters) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 functionality. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 there's no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (array of user objects? what fields?), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides minimal behavioral context. For a data retrieval tool with 3 parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to properly use it.

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 mentions the optional filters (companyId and role) which aligns with the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, but it does confirm the optional nature of these filters.

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 verb ('Obtiene' - gets/fetches) and resource ('users'), and mentions optional filters. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like rifaexpress_query_db or rifaexpress_inspect_table, but the focus on users is clear. The purpose is specific enough to understand what the tool does.

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 mentions optional filters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rifaexpress_query_db for more complex queries or rifaexpress_inspect_table for table inspection. There's no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or limitations.

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