SBA MCP Server

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 implies a read-only search operation but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of firms with basic info). For a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how results are structured and delivered.

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 establishes purpose and scope, the second lists search criteria. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately explains what the tool searches for but fails to address critical behavioral aspects like result format, pagination, error handling, or how filters combine. For a search tool with multiple boolean filters and a limit parameter, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing searchable fields (keyword, name, location) but doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., whether 'keyword' and 'name' are combined) or provide examples beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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 tool searches for SBIR/STTR firms using specific criteria (keyword, name, location) and identifies the target resource as small businesses receiving federal R&D funding. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_sbir_awards' by focusing on firms rather than awards, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_sbir_firm_details' which retrieves details for specific firms.

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 like 'get_sbir_firm_details' (for details on known firms) or 'search_sbir_awards' (for searching awards). It mentions searchable fields but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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