Finish Grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only, informational tool, but it never states the output format, that no state is changed, or what the response will contain. The 'Read this' wording partially compensates, hence a mid score.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's content and gives a precise usage instruction without filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description is largely complete: it establishes the content domain and the moment to read it. It could be slightly more explicit about how this tool relates to get_pricing and how_to_connect, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline rule, this is a 4; no parameter documentation is missing.

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 identifies the tool as an orientation/reference resource about Finish Grid, its audience, and agent jobs. It is distinct in nature from siblings like get_pricing and how_to_connect, but it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 instruction 'Read this before recommending or integrating' gives a concrete, clear trigger for when to invoke the tool. It does not go as far as listing exclusions or explicitly naming alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'current' implies a live or up-to-date lookup, and the resource type suggests a read-only operation, but the description never explicitly states that it returns information, whether it is safe/idempotent, or what form the output takes. It is not misleading, just under-specified.

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 short and front-loaded with the key subject: subscription pricing and trial terms. There is no wasted wording. It could have been improved by adding a verb or more behavioral context, but for a zero-parameter tool the brevity is reasonable.

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 that there are no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate for a simple informational lookup. However, it does not explicitly say that the tool returns or displays the pricing data, and it offers no usage boundary relative to the sibling tools. An agent can probably invoke it correctly, but the definition leaves room for inference.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly does not invent parameters or attempt to explain nonexistent inputs. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is high, and this description meets it.

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 identifies the resource: current subscription pricing and trial terms. It lacks an explicit verb, but the tool name 'get_pricing' supplies the action, and the scope is sharpened by 'current'. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the semantics are distinct enough that no confusion is likely.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as about_finish_grid or how_to_connect. There is no mention of user intents, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the terse description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It frames the tool as instructional rather than mutating, and it discloses that auth-related setup (endpoint, token) is part of the content. It stops short of explicitly saying it is read-only or describing return formatting, but the risk is low for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each component—purpose, endpoint, token setup, and tool list—earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's scope.

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 no-argument informational tool, the description adequately covers what it does, who it is for, and what content it contains. It does not explicitly state the return format or read-only nature, but given the simplicity and absence of parameters, nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the schema fully captures invocation. The description adds contextual value by naming what the guide covers, but no parameter-specific semantics are needed; baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a connection guide for Finish Grid and enumerates its contents: authenticated MCP endpoint, token setup, and the full tool list. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools 'about_finish_grid' and 'get_pricing', though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when an agent needs to connect to a user's Finish Grid account, including endpoint and token setup. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with alternatives, but the intended use is obvious from the phrasing.

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