MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description 'MyTool tool description' reveals nothing about whether this is a read/write operation, its side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. It fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the name.

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 concise with only three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey meaningful information and wastes the opportunity to guide the agent. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there are no substantive sentences to evaluate.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what behavior to expect, leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand or invoke the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'message' parameter is documented as 'Message to process'), so the baseline score is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, such as format examples or constraints, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 'MyTool tool description' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with the word 'tool' added. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, what resource it operates on, or what specific action it performs. This fails to distinguish it from any sibling tools.

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 like 'api-client', 'data-processor', 'example_tool', or 'file-handler'. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives zero usage direction.

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