ph-civic-data-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the data source and year, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness (e.g., is 2020 the latest available), or what format the output takes. The description is minimal and leaves key operational questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. There's no wasted language or redundancy. While it could be more informative, what's present is perfectly structured and front-loaded with essential information.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema description coverage, the description's minimalism is somewhat acceptable. However, for a data retrieval tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read operation and provide more context about the data's limitations (e.g., only 2020 data available). The description meets minimum requirements but leaves 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%, providing good documentation for both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between region and national totals, or provide examples beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value here.

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 retrieves Philippine population data from a specific source (PSA OpenSTAT) and timeframe (2020 Census). It specifies the resource ('Philippine population') and source, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_poverty_stats' which might also use PSA data. The verb 'from' implies retrieval but isn't as strong as 'retrieve' or 'fetch'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_poverty_stats' (which might provide complementary socioeconomic data) or explain why one would choose population statistics over other available datasets. There's no context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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