Kontomanager 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 states 'Retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, rate limits, data freshness (e.g., real-time vs cached), or error conditions. For a tool accessing account data without annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 front-loads the core action ('Retrieves the main account overview') and lists key data components. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for a basic read operation. It specifies what data is returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, without annotations, it misses behavioral details like authentication or rate limits, and it doesn't guide usage relative to siblings, leaving gaps for an agent in complex scenarios.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('main account overview'), specifying what data is included ('plan details, usage statistics, and credit balance'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_call_history or get_phone_numbers by focusing on account-level data rather than specific telephony features. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_bills or download_bill which might also relate to account information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), timing (e.g., use for billing inquiries), or exclusions (e.g., not for real-time usage). Given siblings like list_bills for historical billing or get_phone_numbers for number management, the lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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