qune-tech/ocds-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: automatic embedding for semantic matching (conditional on embedder being loaded) and return values (profile ID and embedding status). However, it omits important details like permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions, or data persistence characteristics.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, data storage details, and return value information. Every sentence adds value with zero redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and return information but lacks sufficient behavioral context. Without annotations, it should more thoroughly address mutation implications, error handling, and operational constraints to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning that stored data includes 'company name, description, CPV codes, categories, and location' without explaining parameter interactions or additional constraints.

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 specific action ('Create a company profile for tender matching') and resource ('company profile'), distinguishing it from siblings like update_company_profile or delete_company_profile by focusing on creation rather than modification or deletion.

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 implies usage context ('for tender matching') and mentions automatic embedding, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_company_profile or prerequisites for successful operation.

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