AWS FinOps MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool finds but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are presented, or any rate limits. For a tool that likely queries AWS resources, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (7 parameters, AWS resource analysis) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may handle return values, the description fails to provide necessary context about authentication, scope, time period interpretation, or how 'unused' is determined beyond the basic criteria mentioned.

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 description provides zero information about any of the 7 parameters, and with 0% schema description coverage, the parameters remain completely undocumented. The description doesn't mention region selection, time period, authentication methods, or any other parameter semantics that would help an agent understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specific action ('find') and resource ('SNS topics') with precise criteria ('with no subscriptions or no messages published'), making the purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on SNS topics specifically rather than other AWS resources.

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, prerequisites, or context for its application. While sibling tools suggest a cost optimization/analysis context, this tool's description doesn't explicitly connect to that context or provide usage boundaries.

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