Kontomanager MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'fetches' and 'lists'), specifies the scope ('for the active number'), and clarifies what it does NOT do (download PDFs), which is valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 three concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies limitations, and the third directs to the alternative tool. Each sentence adds essential information, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complete context: it explains what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and when to use alternatives. The only minor gap is lack of detail on return format (e.g., structure of metadata), but this is reasonable given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on tool behavior rather than parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools that avoid unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 specific action ('fetches a list') and resource ('available bills for the active number'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'download_bill' by noting it only lists metadata, not PDFs. This provides precise differentiation from related tools.

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 (to list bill metadata) and when not to use it (for downloading actual PDFs), and names the alternative tool 'download_bill' for that purpose. This provides clear, actionable guidance for tool selection.

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