dart-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format and mentions an optional context parameter, but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or any rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist, but provides only basic behavioral information.

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 perfectly structured and concise with zero waste. It states the purpose in one clear sentence, then provides separate sections for Args and Returns with exactly the information needed. Every sentence earns its place.

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 0 required parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, the optional parameter, and the return format. The only minor gap is lack of explicit behavioral guarantees (like read-only status), but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 would be 3. The description adds value by explaining the optional 'ctx' parameter as 'MCP Context 객체 (선택 사항)' - MCP Context object (optional), providing semantic meaning beyond the empty schema. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 with specific verb ('반환하는' - returns) and resource ('현재 날짜' - current date), including the exact output format ('YYYYMMDD 형식'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search various financial/business data by focusing solely on returning the current date.

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 context by specifying it returns the current date in YYYYMMDD format, suggesting it should be used when this specific date representation is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for different date formats or time components.

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