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 of behavioral disclosure and does so well. It explains this is a 'raw / power-user tool' that 'returns the full API response,' which helps set expectations about verbosity and complexity. The warning about project ID formatting ('must NOT have the 'b.' prefix') is crucial behavioral guidance that wouldn't be captured in annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but covers the most important behavioral aspects.

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. It opens with the core purpose, immediately provides usage guidance with clear alternatives, explains when to use this tool, and includes a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information. The warning symbol (⚠️) effectively highlights important 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?

For a complex 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of providing context. It explains the tool's relationship to sibling tools, provides clear usage guidance, and includes critical behavioral warnings. The main gap is the lack of information about return values (no output schema), but the description compensates well by stating it 'returns the full API response,' which sets appropriate expectations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the path parameter ('Must include the version prefix') and the project ID warning, but doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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: 'Call any ACC Issues API endpoint (construction/issues/v1)' with the specific verb 'call' and resource 'ACC Issues API endpoint'. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming 'aps_issues_list, aps_issues_get, etc.' as simplified alternatives, making it immediately clear this is a raw/power-user 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 excellent usage guidance with explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use criteria. It states: 'Prefer the simplified tools... for everyday use' and 'Use this when you need full control: custom filters, attribute definitions, attribute mappings, or endpoints not covered by simplified tools.' This gives clear alternatives and specific scenarios for choosing this tool over siblings.

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