ACC.MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format ('compact summary') and organizational context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or error handling. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral 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 two sentences with zero waste: first sentence states purpose and output, second clarifies what spec sections are. It's front-loaded with key information and appropriately sized.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and output format but lacks behavioral details like pagination handling or error cases. For a list tool with three parameters, it should provide more context on usage and limitations.

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 fully documents parameters (project_id, limit, offset). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles documentation.

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 spec sections for submittals') and resource ('in an ACC project'), and specifies what is returned ('compact summary: identifier, title, dates'). It distinguishes from siblings like aps_list_submittal_items by focusing on spec sections rather than items, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 when needing spec sections for submittals in an ACC project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aps_list_submittal_items or aps_list_submittal_packages. It mentions the organizational role of spec sections, which hints at context.

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