qune-tech/ocds-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions deletion of both the profile and its embedding, which implies destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related data), or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or 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 the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, permissions), usage context, or what to expect upon execution (e.g., success/failure responses). For a deletion tool, this leaves critical gaps 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%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'The UUID of the company profile to delete'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating 'by ID' without providing additional context like format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete'), the target resource ('a company profile and its embedding'), and the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_company_profile, get_company_profile, and update_company_profile by specifying deletion rather than creation, retrieval, or modification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing profile ID), consequences (e.g., irreversibility), or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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