mcp-server-getalife

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the tool generates multiple scenarios (comfortable, moderate, aggressive) and shows budget impact. While annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, the description enhances understanding of what the tool actually produces.

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 perfectly structured with two sentences: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy, making it highly efficient and front-loaded with essential information.

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 calculation tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about the tool's behavior and usage scenarios. The only minor gap is the lack of output schema, but the description adequately explains what the tool produces (multiple scenarios and budget impact estimates).

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 any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra semantic value.

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 ('calculates', 'shows', 'estimates') and resources ('monthly savings', 'financial goal', 'budget impact'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on savings goal planning rather than budget analysis, net worth calculation, or other financial 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when someone wants to save for a vacation, emergency fund, car, wedding, down payment, or any specific financial target.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle budgeting, analysis, or other financial calculations.

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