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. It mentions the tool searches awards but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with no results. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently lists searchable fields in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and some usage context but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, and full parameter guidance. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing some parameters (firm, agency, topic, year) but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Search SBIR/STTR awards') and resource ('federal R&D contracts to small businesses'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_sbir_firms' (which searches firms) and 'sbir_stats' (which provides statistics). It provides precise scope by mentioning what can be searched: 'by firm, agency, topic, or year'.

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 implies usage context by listing searchable fields (firm, agency, topic, year), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_sbir_firms' or 'get_sbir_firm_details'. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios is provided, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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