Genesys Cloud MCP Server

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the retrieval action and output breakdown, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. No contradictions with annotations exist, but it misses key behavioral traits for a usage-tracking tool.

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: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second specifies the return values. It is front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and output but lacks context on usage scenarios, error cases, or data freshness. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps in guiding effective use.

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 already documents all parameters (oauthClientId, startDate, endDate) with formats and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying date-range filtering, meeting the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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 specific action ('Retrieves'), the resource ('usage of an OAuth Client'), and scope ('for a given period'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'oauth_clients' which likely lists clients rather than their usage metrics. It also specifies the return data structure, making the purpose unambiguous.

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, such as whether it's for monitoring, auditing, or troubleshooting, or if there are prerequisites like specific permissions. It mentions the period but not context like typical use cases or limitations compared to other tools.

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