mcp-server-peecai

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: explains that classification filtering happens client-side, describes the limit default and range, clarifies that empty results indicate missing data, and mentions server-side vs client-side filtering distinctions.

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 the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: explains metrics, classification values, limit behavior, filtering approaches, and result interpretation. It could be slightly more concise by combining some filtering explanations, but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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, filtering logic, classification system) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides substantial context about what the tool returns (metrics, classification values, limit behavior, empty result meaning). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and schema covering parameters, the description fills important gaps about behavior and interpretation. It could benefit from more detail about the report structure or example output.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context about classification filtering being client-side and filters being server-side, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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: 'Get URL analytics report' with specific metrics (citation_count, retrievals, citation_rate) and classification values. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_domains_report or get_brands_report by focusing specifically on URL analytics, not domains or brands.

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 about when to use certain features (e.g., 'Use filters array for server-side filtering', 'Without date filters, returns data across all available dates'), and explains what empty results mean. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_domains_report or search_queries.

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