SBA MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get SBIR/STTR statistics') and adds necessary detail ('count of firms or awards by criteria') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and structure, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like data freshness or limitations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to help an agent use the tool effectively, but it falls short.

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 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by criteria,' which loosely maps to the parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SBIR/STTR statistics'), and specifies the type of statistics ('count of firms or awards by criteria'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_sbir_awards' and 'search_sbir_firms' by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than detailed searches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'check_size_standard'), leaving minor ambiguity.

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 mentions 'by criteria' but doesn't specify which sibling tools are better for detailed searches versus aggregated counts, nor does it indicate prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose appropriately among the available SBIR-related tools.

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