Pocketsmith MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is a 'shortcut' but doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), performance characteristics, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (search functionality with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, result format, limitations) and doesn't fully address usage compared to siblings. The description is too minimal to provide adequate context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 already fully documents the two parameters (query and limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the query searches 'payee, category, notes', but this is not detailed in the schema's parameter descriptions. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 as 'Search transactions by keyword (payee, category, notes)', specifying both the action (search) and resource (transactions) with field details. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_transactions' by noting this is a 'shortcut' with search parameter, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-related siblings like 'list_transactions_by_account' or 'list_transactions_by_category'.

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 clear context by stating this is a 'shortcut for list_transactions with search parameter', indicating when to use this tool (for keyword searches) versus the base list_transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with other filtering alternatives like list_transactions_by_account or list_transactions_by_category, which are relevant siblings.

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