Vitally 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 the tool 'finds' an account with partial match support, implying a read-only search operation, but doesn't describe what happens on no matches, whether results are paginated, if authentication is needed, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key feature (partial match). There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of accounts, a single account, or an error on no matches), behavioral traits like pagination or authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'search_accounts'. For a search tool with no structured context, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics: it implies the 'name' parameter accepts partial matches, which aligns with the schema's description of 'Full or partial account name to search for'. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter well, so the description doesn't add significant value beyond reinforcing partial match support.

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: 'find an account by name' with the specific verb 'find' and resource 'account'. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'create_account_note' or 'get_account_health', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_accounts' which might offer similar functionality.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions 'partial match supported' which indicates when partial names work, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_accounts' or 'refresh_accounts'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are provided.

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