ACC.MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (getting a token), mentions caching and auto-refresh mechanisms, and implies it's a utility for verification rather than regular use. It doesn't cover rate limits or error responses, but provides sufficient context for safe 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?

Two tightly focused sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 authentication tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent context about purpose, usage patterns, and system behavior. It could mention token expiration or scopes for completeness, but covers the essential information needed to use this tool 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately explains why no parameters are needed ('to verify that credentials are configured correctly'), adding meaningful context 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 specific action ('Get a 2‑legged access token') and resource ('for Autodesk Platform Services (APS)'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform data operations rather than authentication. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the token type and purpose.

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 ('to verify that credentials are configured correctly') and when not to use ('rarely need to call this explicitly' because 'token is cached and auto‑refreshed by all other tools'). This provides clear guidance versus alternatives like direct API calls or other authentication methods.

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