mcp-esa-server-python

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the returned list will have. The description mentions 'max 100' for per_page which is useful behavioral context, but otherwise lacks critical information about how this tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The structure with 'Args:' section is helpful. However, the parameter explanations could be more front-loaded with the purpose statement, and some information like the max constraint could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a parenthetical.

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 read operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, authentication needs, or how pagination works beyond mentioning page numbers. The 0% schema description coverage means the description should do more to compensate, but it only partially succeeds.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantics for all three parameters: 'q' as search query, 'page' as page number, and 'per_page' as number of posts per page with max constraint. However, it doesn't explain query syntax, default values (all parameters are optional with null defaults), or what happens when parameters are omitted. The description adds meaningful context but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get a list of posts from esa.io' which specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('posts'), and source ('esa.io'). It distinguishes from siblings like posts_get_detail (list vs detail) and posts_create/update/delete (read vs write operations), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description text itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like posts_get_detail for individual posts or user_get_info for user data. There's no context about when to use search vs. browse functionality or any prerequisites for usage.

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