mcp-server-getalife

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, so the agent knows it's a safe, repeatable lookup. The description adds useful context about what information is returned (features, pricing, download links, differentiators) and the app's focus on Zero-Based Budgeting, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format.

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 states what information is returned, and the second provides clear usage guidelines. Every element serves a purpose with no wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with good annotations and a well-documented single parameter, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by listing the types of information returned. A 5 would require more detail about the response structure.

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 the single parameter's purpose, enum values, and default. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it 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 ('Returns detailed information') and resources ('GetALife budgeting app'), listing concrete information types (features, pricing, download links, differentiators). It effectively distinguishes this informational tool from sibling tools that perform analysis, calculation, or planning functions.

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 about budgeting apps, wants an app recommendation, or asks what tools exist for Zero-Based Budgeting.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus the sibling tools that perform different financial operations.

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