mcp-ToseaAI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool inspects 'current account tier and feature access' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state this is a safe, non-destructive query. It also doesn't disclose potential authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'expensive runs.' The description provides basic intent but lacks important behavioral details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates both purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by practical context.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't describe what the output contains (what 'account tier and feature access' information is returned) or potential limitations. Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is reasonably complete but could benefit from output details.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the 'before expensive runs' context adds useful semantic framing about when to invoke this parameterless tool.

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: 'Inspect current account tier and feature access' which is a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('account tier and feature access'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on account-level permissions rather than presentation operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The 'before expensive runs' context adds useful framing but doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings.

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 implied usage guidance with 'before expensive runs,' suggesting this tool should be used as a pre-check. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. The context helps but falls short of explicit guidelines about when this tool is preferable over other account-related tools like 'tosea_get_quota_status.'

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