mcp-server-peecai

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that classification filtering is client-side, filters array is for server-side filtering, empty results indicate no data, and it specifies the default limit and result behavior, which enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 and front-loaded with key information (analytics metrics and classification values), followed by usage details. It avoids redundancy, but could be slightly more streamlined by integrating some details more cohesively, though all sentences earn their place.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains key behaviors, filtering mechanisms, and result interpretations, but lacks details on output format or structure, which would be beneficial since there's no output schema, preventing a score of 5.

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 parameters. The description adds some semantic context (e.g., classification is client-side filtered, filters array for server-side filtering, limit default), but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides, aligning with 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 specific verbs ('Get domain analytics report') and resources ('retrieval_rate, citation_rate, and retrieved_percentage'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on domain-specific analytics rather than brands, chats, URLs, or other entities listed in sibling tools.

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 clear context on when to use it (e.g., 'Without date filters, returns data across all available dates') and mentions client-side vs. server-side filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_urls_report' or other sibling reports, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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