Copilot Money MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context about the cache being local and potentially incomplete. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides practical information about data source limitations that annotations don't cover.

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?

Three concise sentences that each serve distinct purposes: states what the tool does, explains when to use it, and provides important limitations. No wasted words, front-loaded with 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 read-only tool with annotations, the description provides excellent context about what information is returned and cache limitations. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the return format, but with no output schema, the description does well overall.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, and instead focuses on what the tool returns, which is helpful context given the lack of output 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 specific action ('Get information') and resource ('local data cache'), with explicit details about what information is included ('date range of cached transactions and total count'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on cache metadata rather than actual financial data like transactions or accounts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('before running historical queries') and provides important context about limitations ('local cache that may not contain your complete transaction history'), which helps differentiate it from data retrieval tools like get_transactions.

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