MCP Server

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 but offers none. It does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, potential side effects, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with unknown behavior.

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?

While the description is brief, this is due to under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase 'ApiClient tool description' fails to convey necessary information and does not earn its place as a helpful description. It lacks any structure or front-loading of critical details.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, its behavior, or what it returns. For a tool with one parameter and unknown functionality, this description provides almost no useful context for an AI agent.

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% (the 'message' parameter is documented in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the purpose of the 'message' parameter or how it influences tool behavior.

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 'ApiClient tool description' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'api-client' with minimal variation. It provides no specific verb or resource information, fails to distinguish this tool from its siblings (data-processor, example_tool, file-handler, my-tool), and gives no indication of what the tool actually 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with no information to make an informed selection decision.

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