ACC.MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively communicates this is a read-only documentation retrieval tool (implied by 'Return... documentation'), though it doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. However, for a zero-parameter documentation tool, this level of behavioral disclosure is reasonably complete.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence listing the content returned, followed by a clear usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 documentation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what content is returned and when to use it. A perfect score would require mentioning the return format (e.g., markdown, HTML, plain text) or confirming it's human-readable documentation, but given the simplicity, it's highly adequate.

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 with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct. It gets a 4 rather than 5 because it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters needed' or similar, though this is implied by the 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 the tool's purpose: 'Return ACC Issues API quick‑reference documentation' with specific details about what content it provides (project ID format, statuses, workflow, API paths, filters, sort options, error troubleshooting). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'aps_docs' and 'aps_submittals_docs' by focusing specifically on Issues API documentation.

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 usage guidance: 'Call this before your first Issues interaction.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus diving directly into Issues API operations, and it implicitly suggests alternatives are the actual Issues tools (like aps_issues_create, aps_issues_list, etc.) for actual data operations.

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