Nerdearla Agenda MCP Server

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 mentions that results include URLs when available, which adds some context about output behavior. However, it doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no upcoming talks exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key output characteristic. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, it lacks important context about the return format (beyond mentioning URLs), error conditions, or how results are ordered. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to compensate, but it doesn't fully address these gaps.

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%, with the single parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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: 'Obtiene las próximas charlas' (Gets upcoming talks) with specific context 'basadas en la hora actual GMT-3' (based on current GMT-3 time). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_past_talks and get_missed_talks by focusing on future events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_next_talk which might serve a similar purpose.

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 when to choose get_upcoming_talks over get_next_talk or get_best_talk_recommendation, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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