GoMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels by disclosing key behavioral traits: it states this is a 'long-running operation that executes asynchronously and may take several minutes', describes the return value ('Returns a task ID immediately'), and provides follow-up actions ('poll tasks/get for the result, or call tasks/cancel to abort'). This covers execution time, async nature, and result handling without contradictions.

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 well-structured and concise: it uses three sentences that each add critical information—purpose, behavioral details, and usage guidelines—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently covers necessary context.

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 (long-running, async) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the operation, return value, and follow-up steps. However, it does not cover potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving minor gaps in context.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by implying a 'topic' parameter in 'for a given topic', which provides semantic context beyond the schema, though it does not detail specific parameter requirements or formats.

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: 'Generate an analytics report for a given topic' specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('analytics report'), and 'for comprehensive data analysis tasks' adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_documents' or 'search_semantic', which might also involve data analysis, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use this for comprehensive data analysis tasks' indicates when to use it, and it mentions alternatives implicitly by referencing 'poll tasks/get for the result, or call tasks/cancel to abort', though it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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