qune-tech/ocds-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a read operation ('Get') and serves a diagnostic purpose ('check connectivity'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or response format. It adds some context about combining API and local data, but behavioral traits are minimally covered.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured.

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 complexity (simple read operation with 0 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how the combined statistics are structured, which could be important for an 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. It focuses on the tool's purpose and usage, which is sufficient given the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get combined statistics: release and embedding counts from the REST API, plus local company profile counts.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resources ('statistics', 'counts'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_company_profiles' or 'list_releases' which might provide similar data in different formats.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Call this first to check connectivity and see what data is available.' This gives a specific when-to-use guideline (initial diagnostic/overview), though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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