mcp-server-getalife

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent calculation tool. The description adds valuable context about what the tool actually calculates (regular runway plus 'survival mode' runway) and its importance as 'a key personal finance metric.' It doesn't contradict annotations but provides meaningful behavioral context beyond them.

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 with three sentences: purpose statement, additional feature mention, and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose 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 annotations cover safety aspects and schema covers parameters, the description provides good contextual completeness by explaining what the tool calculates and when to use it. The main gap is lack of output schema information, but the description compensates reasonably well by explaining the dual runway calculations.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'savings and monthly expenses' which aligns with required parameters, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 calculates financial runway (verb+resource) and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for determining how many months savings would last based on expenses. It explicitly mentions 'survival mode' runway as a unique feature not implied by the name alone.

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 usage scenarios: 'when someone asks how long their savings would last, how much emergency fund they need, or whether they have enough saved.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives like budget analysis or net worth calculation tools.

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