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 effectively communicates that this is a read-only documentation retrieval tool (implied by 'Return... documentation'), though it doesn't explicitly mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format details. The description adds useful context about when to call it, but could be more comprehensive about behavioral traits.

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 with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence specifies what the tool returns, and the second provides clear usage guidance. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the format of the returned documentation (e.g., markdown, HTML, plain text), but for a documentation tool with this context, the description is largely sufficient.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool returns and when to use it, which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Return ACC Submittals API quick-reference documentation') and resources ('endpoints, query parameters, statuses, custom numbering, typical workflow, and key concepts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like aps_docs (general documentation) and aps_submittals_request (API requests) by focusing specifically on Submittals 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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this before your first Submittals interaction or when unsure about Submittals API usage.' This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives like aps_list_submittal_items or aps_get_submittal_item which are for actual API operations rather than documentation retrieval.

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