mcp-server-peecai

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation with closed-world data. The description adds value by specifying the return content ('brand IDs, names, and associated domains'), which provides context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, the added context justifies a score above baseline.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does and what it returns, 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 low complexity (a simple list operation), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It provides the necessary context without needing to explain parameters or output details, as those are covered elsewhere.

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 clear documentation for all three parameters in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as syntax or format details. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 when no extra param info is given.

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 action ('List tracked brands') and resource ('for a Peec AI project'), and specifies what information is returned ('brand IDs, names, and associated domains'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_brands_report' or other list tools, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 by mentioning 'for a Peec AI project' and the input schema provides guidance on finding project IDs via 'list_projects'. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_brands_report' or other siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, keeping it at an implied usage level.

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