mcp-oracle-h

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool triggers human approval via Telegram notification, the action is critical/irreversible, and it returns a request_id for polling. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling scenarios.

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 perfectly structured and concise with zero waste. Three sentences each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's purpose, providing usage guidelines, and explaining the return value. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (human-in-the-loop approval system) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the approval workflow, Telegram notification mechanism, and relationship with oracle_poll_status. However, it doesn't describe what happens after timeout or error scenarios, leaving some 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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('submit a critical or irreversible action to ORACLE-H for human approval') and distinguishes it from its sibling oracle_poll_status by explaining the relationship. It precisely defines what the tool does: submitting actions for human approval via Telegram notification.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'ALWAYS use this tool before executing any destructive, financial, or irreversible operation.' It clearly defines when to use it (for critical/irreversible actions) and references the alternative tool oracle_poll_status for retrieving decisions, creating a complete workflow.

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