mcp-server-getalife

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the analysis criteria (Income - Allocations = 0), mentions actionable feedback, and lists common issues checked (overspending on housing, missing savings, unassigned income). No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with core functionality, uses two efficient sentences with zero waste, and every part (analysis, checks, usage context) directly supports tool selection without 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 moderate complexity, rich annotations covering safety and behavior, and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough: it clarifies purpose, usage, and analysis scope. No output schema exists, but the description hints at feedback, which is adequate for this context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all parameters (monthly_income, allocations, currency). The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying the tool uses these inputs for analysis, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('analyzes', 'checks') and resources ('budget'), explicitly mentioning what it evaluates (balanced budget, common issues) and distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on ZBB principles rather than creation, calculation, or explanation.

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 ('when someone has a budget and wants to know if it follows ZBB principles correctly'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_budget_plan' or 'explain_zero_based_budgeting' by targeting analysis rather than creation or education.

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