ph-civic-data-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cached' data which implies potentially stale information, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the statistics are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what happens when filters return no data.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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), 100% parameter schema coverage, and relatively simple filtering parameters, the description provides adequate context. However, for a statistical aggregation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about what 'aggregate' means and the nature of the cached data.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value regarding parameter usage or interactions.

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 ('Aggregate procurement statistics') and resource ('latest notices cached from PhilGEPS'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'search_procurement' which appears to be a search rather than aggregation tool, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 like 'search_procurement' or other procurement-related tools. It mentions the data source ('latest notices cached from PhilGEPS') but gives no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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