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. It mentions the return format ('compact summary: title, identifier, spec section, description, dates') which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 operation with 3 parameters (1 required) and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool returns but doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), authentication needs, or error handling. The absence of annotations increases the need for more comprehensive description.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 action ('List') and resource ('submittal packages in an ACC project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from some siblings like 'aps_list_submittal_items' and 'aps_list_submittal_specs' by focusing on packages rather than items or specs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all list operations in the sibling set.

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 like 'aps_list_submittal_items' or 'aps_list_submittal_specs'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusions. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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