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 the full burden. It mentions the data source (PSA) and timeframe, but lacks behavioral details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format entails. The description is minimal and doesn't disclose key operational traits beyond basic data scope.

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 very concise with a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose, data source, and timeframe. It's front-loaded with key information, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage hints. No wasted words, but brevity limits completeness.

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 high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a data retrieval tool with no annotations, it lacks context on data freshness, update frequency, or error handling. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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 the parameter 'region' documented as 'PH region (None returns national)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of region values or data availability by region. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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 'Poverty incidence from PSA' with a specific data source and timeframe ('latest: 2023 Full-Year'), providing a specific verb (retrieve poverty statistics) and resource (PSA data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_population_stats', which might cover related demographic data.

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 or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for economic analysis versus general demographic data from 'get_population_stats'. Usage is implied by the data type but not explicitly stated.

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