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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), supports pagination, fetches from a REST API, and is used for discovery purposes. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, which would be helpful for a tool with 20 parameters.

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 two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and its filtering capabilities, the second provides usage guidance and references the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and highly readable.

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 complex tool with 20 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, filtering scope, pagination support, data source, and relationship to get_release. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning expected return format or result structure 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%, so the schema already documents all 20 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions filtering criteria like 'month, CPV code prefix, procurement category, procurement method, value range, and buyer name' but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. The baseline of 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 verb ('List and filter') and resource ('OCDS procurement releases'), and distinguishes this tool from its sibling get_release by specifying its role in 'tender discovery before drilling into specific releases.' This provides specific differentiation from alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for tender discovery before drilling into specific releases with get_release'), providing clear guidance on its purpose relative to the sibling tool get_release. This gives the agent a specific alternative for detailed release retrieval.

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