aiprox-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses return values (endpoint and pricing) which compensates for the missing output schema, but fails to mention safety characteristics (read-only vs. destructive), side effects, or rate limits.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first states purpose; the second explains inputs and outputs. Every clause earns its place and the description is appropriately front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the functional context by naming the service (AIProx) and specifying the return payload (endpoint, pricing). Minor gap: no error handling or edge case guidance.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description loosely maps 'Describe what you need' to the task parameter but adds no specific syntax, format constraints, or semantic details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (agent) with clear scope ('for a specific task'). The task-based discovery purpose distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent (likely ID-based retrieval) and list_agents (enumeration).

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?

Provides implicit usage guidance through 'Describe what you need,' suggesting natural language input for discovery. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use criteria or comparisons to alternatives (e.g., when to use get_agent instead).

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