mcp-server-getalife

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description adds some context by specifying the output format ('shareable text summary') and use cases. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which limits its transparency beyond the 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 the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific inclusions and usage guidelines, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, such as clarifying the output format and when to use the tool, making it highly efficient 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, usage, and output format. However, it lacks details on the exact structure of the generated summary (e.g., how metrics are presented) or error handling, which could be useful for an agent. Annotations provide safety context, but the description could be slightly more comprehensive.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'savings_balance' affects the Financial Runway estimate). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('Generates a shareable text summary') and resources ('of a budget plan'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'analyze_budget' or 'create_budget_plan' by focusing on output formatting rather than analysis or creation. It explicitly mentions the content included ('full allocation table, key metrics, and a Financial Runway estimate'), making the purpose highly specific.

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: 'Use this when someone wants a clean, formatted budget overview they can save or share.' It lists specific use cases ('copying into notes, sharing with a partner, or sending to a financial advisor'), which helps differentiate it from alternatives like 'analyze_budget' (likely for deeper analysis) or 'calculate_financial_runway' (likely for raw calculations).

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