ACC.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 (compact summary with specific fields) and filtering capabilities, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'List' suggests it).

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 sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and return format, second states filtering capabilities. Front-loaded with essential information, appropriately sized for a list operation with filtering.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, return format, and filtering. However, it doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations (e.g., no readOnlyHint) or output schema (return structure implied but not guaranteed). The 100% schema coverage helps, but behavioral aspects like pagination could be more explicit.

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 marginal value by mentioning filtering by 'status, package, spec section, and review response' (though 'review response' isn't in the schema), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('submittal items in an ACC project'), and specifies the scope ('compact summary' with enumerated fields). It distinguishes from siblings like 'aps_get_submittal_item' (single item) and 'aps_list_submittal_packages' (different resource).

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 mentioning filtering capabilities and the compact summary format, which suggests it's for overview/browsing rather than detailed inspection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aps_get_submittal_item' for detailed views or 'aps_list_submittal_packages' for package-level lists.

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