Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying it retrieves 'a single expense by its ID', which clarifies scope beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bilingual repetition ('Get a single expense by its ID. / Obtiene un gasto por su ID.') adds redundancy without extra value, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it remains clear and well-structured.

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 simple read tool with rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output details (no output schema provided) and doesn't address potential errors or edge cases, leaving some contextual gaps despite the structured data support.

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%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by its ID' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as ID format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single expense'), specifying retrieval by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_expenses' (which retrieves multiple) and 'update_expense' (which modifies). The bilingual format reinforces but doesn't detract from clarity.

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 you need a specific expense by ID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_expenses' for multiple expenses or 'search_invoices' for related searches. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some contextual gaps.

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