Frihet MCP Server

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds minimal context about pagination, which is useful but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'list all' entails (e.g., completeness guarantees). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 adds redundancy but doesn't significantly harm clarity. It could be more efficient by consolidating the two language versions into one concise statement.

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 annotations cover safety and behavioral traits, and the schema fully documents parameters, the description is adequate for a simple list tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what the returned expenses look like (e.g., fields, format), leaving a gap in completeness.

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 clear documentation for both parameters (limit and offset). The description mentions 'optional pagination' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides about how these parameters work together or typical usage patterns.

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 ('expenses'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_expense' (singular vs. plural) or 'search_invoices' (different resource), so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 'get_expense' (for a single expense) or 'search_invoices' (for a different resource type). It mentions optional pagination but doesn't explain when pagination is needed or how to choose between this and other list tools.

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