mcp-server-getalife

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation, the description explains what the tool actually does with the data: normalizes to yearly amounts, calculates percentage of income consumed, and identifies savings potential. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the transformation logic.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences. The first sentence clearly explains what the tool does, and the second sentence provides usage guidelines. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted text.

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?

The description is quite complete for this analytical tool. It explains the transformation logic, provides clear usage guidelines, and works well with the comprehensive input schema. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by explaining what calculations will be performed. For a read-only analysis tool with good annotations, this is 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, though it does mention the income percentage calculation which relates to the monthly_income parameter. This meets the baseline expectation for 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('analyzes', 'normalizes', 'calculates', 'identifies') and resources ('subscriptions and recurring costs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on subscription analysis rather than general budgeting or financial planning.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when someone wants to know how much they spend on subscriptions, find costs to cut, or understand the true yearly cost of their recurring payments.' This provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus other financial analysis tools.

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