Woop MCP

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), description explains the dual behavior: returning a link when called without token, and logging in when called with token. This adds context not present in annotations, though it omits error handling or side effects like session duration.

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?

Four sentences that efficiently convey context, best practice, and two usage patterns. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description covers main behaviors (link generation, token login). It lacks details on return format, error cases (e.g., invalid token), and session behavior, but is largely sufficient for a simple authentication tool.

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?

Parameter 'token' has 0% schema coverage, but description fully explains its purpose: providing a JWT to complete login. It also clarifies the alternative of calling with no args to get the link, which is essential for understanding the tool's usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for authentication, detailing two modes: getting a login link (no args) and completing login with a token. It distinguishes itself by focusing on authentication flow, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'connect' tool.

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?

Provides clear guidance on the two usage modes (permanent config vs. session token) and when to call with/without arguments. However, it does not compare to sibling tools like 'connect' or exclude scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details about how the tool behaves based on credential state (returns authenticated:true vs connect_url). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about return values and state-dependent behavior. It could mention if authentication is required to call this tool, but the annotations suggest it is a safe, read-only operation.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description compensates by explaining the output structure based on connection state, adding meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 returns connection status and URLs, with specific details on what happens in different states (authenticated vs missing credentials). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate and list_connections by focusing on overall connection health.

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 context on when to use (e.g., when checking connection status) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for monitoring connection state but no exclusion criteria.

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?

Description adds extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: invoke works even when MCP not installed, returns connect/checkout links for auth/payment, writes require owner/admin. Annotations only provide hints like readOnlyHint=false, but description fully explains mutability and special behaviors.

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?

Description is long but well-structured, front-loading core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some details could be streamlined. Clear organization with flow explanation and action list.

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?

Covers core flow, auth, payment, installation, and sibling tool relationships. Missing parameter semantics and error handling, but overall provides substantial context for a complex tool with no output schema.

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?

Despite 13 parameters with 0% schema coverage, description only explains the 'action' parameter and indirectly mentions mcp_id, tool_id, arguments in flow context. It does not define query, limit, message, immediate, tier_slug, conversation, request_name, report_context, request_details. Inadequate compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it's the official mcp.ai marketplace for discovering and running MCPs/tools. It describes core flow (search, describe, invoke) and distinguishes from siblings by positioning as the primary tool to use first before external registries.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (first for any capability), when to use invoke vs install, instructions for authentication and payment scenarios, and lists other actions with their purposes.

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?

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true. Description adds that data will no longer be available and returns a re-connection URL, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two precise sentences: first states the core action, second explains the return value. No redundant words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action and return value. Could include more context about prerequisites (e.g., requires an active connection) but is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify what the 'item' parameter represents beyond 'a specific bank'. No format, example, or mapping to the parameter is given.

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 (revokes consent, deletes connection data) and resource (specific bank). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_connections or force_sync by focusing on disconnection and data deletion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_connections to verify, force_sync to refresh). No prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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?

Describes behavioral traits beyond annotations: waits up to 60s, polls until item stops updating, returns statuses like timed_out, needs_action, and synced. No contradiction with annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false).

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?

Concise yet comprehensive: first sentence states core action, then conditions, parameters, return value details. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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?

Completes all necessary context: return format with fields, error states, timeout behavior, and follow-up action. Handles both sync modes. No output schema provided, but description compensates fully.

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?

Adds meaning beyond the input schema: explains items as array of selectors (item_id, connector_id, connector_name) and that omitting items syncs all banks. Explains wait=false for fire-and-forget. Schema coverage 0% but description fully compensates.

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's purpose: force re-sync of bank connections and wait for completion. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_get_item_status and openfinance_list_connections by specifying its unique action and result.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (stale balance/transactions) and when not to (not for disconnecting/reconnecting). Provides alternatives like openfinance_get_item_status for timeout cases and gives usage context for both default and fire-and-forget modes.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the response is real-time and that for CREDIT accounts, a specific error type results in a structured warning rather than an exception. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds unique value: endpoint, input constraints, error handling, response shape. No redundant or unnecessary 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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers input constraints, error handling, and response shape. It could mention whether the endpoint returns balances for all accounts in the array or one at a time, but overall it is fairly complete for the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter account_ids: it must be an array of 1–50 strings, and for CREDIT accounts a specific error may occur. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 returns real-time balance payload per account id and specifies the API endpoint (GET /accounts/:id/balance). It distinguishes from siblings like openfinance_list_accounts (lists accounts) and openfinance_get_accounts_detail (likely returns more detailed info) by focusing on balance retrieval.

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 guidance on input format (array of 1–50 account_ids) and error handling for CREDIT accounts (BALANCE_FETCH_ERROR returns warning instead of throwing). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds batch limits (1-50 IDs), return shape { results, errors }, and indicates it is a GET endpoint. No 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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first explains what the tool returns, second specifies parameter and output format. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter constraints, and batch shape. It could describe the return object fields more, but given low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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 sole parameter account_ids has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds crucial usage info: it must be an array of 1-50 strings. This compensates fully for the schema gap.

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 returns full account objects including extended creditData, and specifies it is a batch operation by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like openfinance_list_accounts which likely provide simpler lists.

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 implies use when detailed account info with credit data is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Context from sibling names helps, but description itself lacks direct guidance.

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds behavioral context: batch shape { results, errors }, clarifies that payments[] may reflect previous bill payment, warns about missing paid/status field, and explains what is NOT returned (individual transactions). No 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?

Description is well-structured and front-loaded with main action. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose with details about Pluggy and Brazilian Open Finance. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, description provides return fields for payments and mentions financeCharges. Batch shape explained. However, financeCharges fields not fully detailed, and structure of results objects not fully specified. Adequate for agent to use correctly.

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?

Only parameter (bill_ids) has 0% schema description coverage. Description fully compensates: explains it is an array, tells agent to discover ids using sibling tool, and implies usage pattern. Adds meaning beyond schema type.

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?

Description clearly states it returns bill-level detail for one or more credit card bills by id. It specifies exact return fields (financeCharges, payments) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool openfinance_list_transactions for itemized transactions.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (to get bill details) and when not (for transactions), provides prerequisite (use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills to discover ids), and gives interpretive caveat about payments[] and payment status, directing to another tool for status.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not burdened with those. It adds useful behavioral details: returns status, executionStatus, connector metadata, and for the all-connections case returns `{ count, items }`. No 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?

Two concise sentences with critical information front-loaded. No redundant language; every part adds value.

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 simple read-only status tool, the description covers the main behavior, return structure for the list case, and distinguishes the two usage modes. However, it omits details about the exact return structure for a single item and does not mention pagination or error handling, though these may be standard across similar tools.

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 has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by explaining the effect of omitting vs. providing the `item` parameter. It does not specify the expected format or type of the parameter value, but the context is sufficient for a tool with a single optional string 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?

Description clearly states it returns the current status of a bank connection, lists possible status values, and distinguishes between fetching all connections vs. a single one by omitting or passing the `item` parameter.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to omit `item` (get all) or pass `item` (get single), providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool compared to siblings like `openfinance_list_connections`.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read behavior. The description adds valuable context: credit balance meanings vary by connector, the `bank` field is the brand name, and account `name` is the legal entity. These details go beyond annotations and inform correct usage.

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 informative but slightly lengthy; however, every sentence adds value, explaining nuances like credit balance and field meanings. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear structure. Could be marginally shorter, but the detail is justified for a complex tool.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return fields (balance, number, type, subtype, bankData, creditData), parameter usage, and important caveats. It also cross-references another tool for credit bills. The annotations provide safety context. The description is complete for agent decision-making.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully explains both parameters: `item` can target a single bank or be omitted for all banks, and `type` filters by account type (BANK or CREDIT). This adds critical meaning missing from the schema.

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 returns bank and credit card accounts with specific fields, and distinguishes between BANK and CREDIT types. It provides a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('accounts'), and differentiates from sibling tools like openfinance_list_credit_card_bills by noting when to use each.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to omit or pass the `item` parameter (list all banks vs. target a single bank). It warns that `balance` for credit cards is connector-dependent and should not be treated as a monthly bill, and directs to an alternative tool for standardized data. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use information.

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?

Annotations declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds caching behavior, single aggregated response, and field details, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences efficiently cover purpose, structure, and caching. No wasted words, front-loaded with main action.

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 parameterless read tool, description covers return fields and caching. Slightly lacking explicit mention of no pagination or size limits, but 'single aggregated response' suffices.

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 zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds meaning about output fields (id, description, etc.) and caching, though no parameters to explain.

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 returns Pluggy's transaction category taxonomy, cached for the session, and details the fields. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_transactions by focusing on category taxonomy.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool before update_transaction_category by mentioning the category ID's role, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by specifying the returned add_connection_url but does not disclose pagination or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads purpose and includes key details. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, description partially covers return fields. Missing pagination or ordering info, but sufficient for basic listing.

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?

No parameters, so description cannot add meaning. Schema coverage is 100% (no params). Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it returns saved bank connections with specific fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, add_connection_url). Distinct from sibling tools like List Accounts.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_accounts or list_transactions. Does not mention prerequisites or use cases.

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?

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds critical behavioral details: derived payment_status computation, connector asymmetry for open_bill, warning behavior if CREDIT_CARDS not enabled. No 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 long but front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more concise. For the complexity, the verbosity is acceptable.

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 complexity of Brazilian Open Finance semantics, derived fields, and connector asymmetry, the description is highly complete. It covers return values, edge cases (PAST_DUE_UNCONFIRMED), and alternative tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains include_open_bill, account_id, and account_ids in detail, but page and page_size are not explicitly described, leaving a minor gap.

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 returning CLOSED credit card bills for CREDIT-type accounts, listing specific fields and derived payment_status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_get_credit_card_bill.

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?

Provides extensive usage guidance: explains when to use this tool vs. others (e.g., itemized transactions via openfinance_list_transactions), cautions about payment semantics, and explains the include_open_bill parameter and connector asymmetry.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a specific error wrapper instead of throwing, and it lists the types of investments and fields included. Annotations already signal safety, so the description provides incremental detail.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently lists investment types and fields without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

The description mentions the return structure (total, results, warning) but lacks details on pagination (page, page_size), the meaning of 'item', and the precise structure of results items. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (item, page, type, page_size). The agent has no guidance on their meaning or usage, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 returns the investment portfolio for a connection, listing specific asset types (FIIs, stocks, ETFs, etc.) and including field examples (balance, amount, dueDate, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investment_transactions and other list tools.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as openfinance_list_investment_transactions. It fails to state when not to use it or to mention prerequisites like requiring an INVESTMENTS-enabled connection.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context beyond this, such as the specific fields returned (agreedRate, brokerageNumber, itemized expenses) and the read-only nature of listing transactions. No 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?

Two concise paragraphs: first focuses on output details and transaction types, second on usage sequence and bulk support. Information is front-loaded and no unnecessary words. Could be slightly tighter but overall efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return fields, required input from a previous tool, and bulk feature. Missing explanation for page/page_size pagination, which is a minor gap.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It mentions the required investment_id and bulk support via investment_ids, providing context on when to use each. However, it does not explain page or page_size parameters, nor does it provide format or constraints for the parameters.

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?

Clearly states it returns movement history for a specific investment position, listing transaction types (BUY/SELL/TAX/INTEREST/AMORTIZATION/TRANSFER) and detailed fields. Distinguished from sibling openfinance_list_investments by specifying it should be used after that tool to obtain the investment_id.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id, providing clear sequential guidance. Also mentions bulk support for multiple investment_ids. Does not explicitly describe when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as sequential querying with rate-limit spacing and the return structure per connection ({ results, errors }). No contradiction.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action (list loans), and includes all essential details without extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return format. It could mention typical fields in a loan contract, but the current detail is sufficient for effective use.

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 single parameter 'items' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining it as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) and clarifying that omitting it lists all loans. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans), specifies the resource 'loan contracts' and action 'list', and distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts by focusing on loans.

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 explicitly instructs when to pass 'items' (for specific connections) and when to omit it (for all banks). It also mentions sequential querying with rate-limit spacing. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, though the resource type implies the appropriate use case.

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?

Discloses numerous behavioral traits beyond annotations: pagination ceiling of 5000, truncation warning, error handling returns JSON, CREDIT PENDING/POSTED variance by bank, bulk execution behavior. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint).

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?

Long but well-structured with logical sections (purpose, credit card details, filters, pagination, error handling, detail options, troubleshooting). Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be tightened, but high information density justifies length.

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 complex financial tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all aspects: parameter semantics, pagination behavior, error handling, bank-specific variability, troubleshooting for failed syncs, and detail options. Very complete and self-contained.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains all parameters: from/to (ISO format), page (omit for auto-paginate), page_size (max 500), detail (compact/rich/raw with row data specifics), search_queries (case-insensitive substring, OR, 5000 limit), account_id (required), account_ids (batch). Adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns transactions for bank accounts (BANK or CREDIT). Distinguishes from siblings by noting it's the only way to get itemized credit card transactions and references openfinance_list_credit_card_bills for bill totals. Mentions bulk support via account_ids.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: when to use (transaction listing), when not to (credit card bills -> use openfinance_list_credit_card_bills), pagination options (auto vs manual), date filters, search behavior, detail levels, and troubleshooting for zero totals. Clear alternatives and context.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context: truncation at 5000 transactions per account with a 'truncated:true' flag, compact vs raw return formats, and detailed enrichment options. No contradiction with annotations.

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 somewhat long but every sentence adds meaningful information. It leads with the core purpose and benefit, then details parameters and options. Could be slightly more concise, but it is well-organized and informative.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description thoroughly explains the return structure across granularities, the truncation limit, and enrichment details. It covers expected output fields like total entradas, saídas, monthly evolution, top expenses, and per-account breakdown. Minor omission: error handling is not discussed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers most (item, from, to, granularity, detail, type) with usage examples and acceptable values. However, the 'top_n' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool performs consolidated cash-flow analysis for a bank connection in one call, resolving accounts internally. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it avoids needing to call openfinance_list_accounts, and contrasts with the likely basic list tool.

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 explicit use cases ('análise anual/mensal', 'fluxo de caixa') and guidance on when to use granularity:'raw' vs default. It also explains the effect of omitting the 'item' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or directly name alternatives.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral details: it returns a global indicator (none/minor/major/critical), degraded components, open incidents, and flags incidents affecting the user's connected banks in `your_banks_affected`. This fully discloses the tool's output and caveats.

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 somewhat long (around 100 words) but every sentence is informative: core purpose, usage guidance, and return details are all present. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Could be slightly more concise, but no extraneous content.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (global indicator, degraded components, incidents). It also provides usage context and differentiates from a sibling tool. The tool is simple (no params, good annotations), and the description covers all necessary aspects.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters. It adds value by describing the return structure, which compensates for lack of parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 explicitly states the tool checks the LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider's public status page, distinguishing it from the connection-specific `openfinance_get_item_status`. It clearly identifies the resource (provider health) and the action (checking status), with no ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: when data looks incomplete or stale despite an UPDATED connection, such as missing accounts or transactions. It explains that the tool reveals upstream outages or incidents, enabling differentiation between provider-side and connection issues. No alternatives are named beyond the sibling, but the context is clear.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it honors user's plan (PF hides PJ banks), returns caveat warnings for non-Open-Finance connectors, and returns a hint if no keywords. No 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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then details, then usage guidance. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, but description comprehensively explains return fields (id, access, audience, connections, accounts, connect_url, caveat). Also covers plan filtering and hint behavior. Complete for a search tool.

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 0%, but the description adequately explains both parameters: keywords (array of strings, required, with example) and include_accounts (boolean, to include accounts). It could specify defaults but provides sufficient context.

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 it searches bank connectors by name, returns specific fields (id, access, audience, etc.), and generates a connect_url. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect and marketplace by being a pre-connection search step.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this BEFORE connecting, states that keywords[] is required (and warns against dumping the catalog without it), and advises surfacing caveats to prefer Open Finance connectors for automation. Clear when/why to use.

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?

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: it overrides Pluggy's automatic categorization, creates a Category Rule for future similar transactions, and details batch error handling. This provides rich context that annotations (basic flags) do not convey.

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 lengthy but efficiently packed with essential information. It is well-structured: purpose, usage, side effects, and batch shape. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but it remains clear and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers all key aspects: purpose, parameter details, side effects, error behavior, and return structure. Without an output schema, it provides the necessary shape. An agent can confidently invoke the tool based on this description.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'items' array structure, the origin of transaction_id and category_id from other tools, and the return shape including per-item errors. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Corrects the category of one or more transactions'. It uses a specific verb (update) and resource (transactions), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_categories as ID sources.

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 explains when to use the tool (to fix miscategorized transactions and improve categorization accuracy) and describes the side effect of creating a Category Rule. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear and guides appropriate usage.

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?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction' adds minor behavioral context (suggesting the tool may use the conversation for debugging), but does not significantly expand on the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 sentence that states the purpose and a key requirement. It is efficient and front-loaded, but could be improved by adding a brief structured breakdown of parameters.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description only partially covers the tool's context. It lacks information about the return value, side effects (e.g., whether the report is stored or sent to developers), and the meaning of the 'context' parameter.

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 0%, yet the description only mentions the conversation parameter. It does not explain the 'message' parameter (required) or the 'context' parameter, leaving the agent without sufficient understanding of their purpose or expected format.

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: to report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on authentication and Open Finance operations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or context for when reporting via this tool is appropriate, nor does it reference sibling tools.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, but does not contradict them.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part is essential and clear.

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 simple tool with no parameters and a straightforward return value (versions), the description is complete. No output schema is necessary.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add param details.

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 (Show) and the resource (current MCP platform and adapter versions). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that deal with authentication, finance, or other operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives, but it is a simple version info tool. The usage is implied by the purpose.

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about what exactly is returned (MCPs, connection status, catalog counts). No contradictions; it fully discloses the non-destructive nature.

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 sentence that captures all necessary information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns and its purpose.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to add parameter info. It appropriately explains the output, compensating for the absence of an output schema.

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 it returns toolkit state, including installed MCPs, connection status, and catalog tool counts. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mostly openfinance or authentication actions.

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 implies usage for checking overall toolkit status. With no parameters and a straightforward purpose, explicit when-not-to-use is not necessary. It could mention alternatives, but the tool's role is clear.

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