Copilot Money MCP

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what information is returned (sync health, timestamps, login requirements, error states) and that it covers 'all linked financial institutions.' However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or data freshness.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and what information it provides, and the second states when to use it. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (read-only status check with no parameters) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and output details well. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more specifics on the return format (e.g., structured list vs. summary), but this is a minor gap.

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 the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, which is correct for a parameterless tool. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('connection status for all linked financial institutions'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_accounts or get_transactions. It specifies the scope is comprehensive ('all linked financial institutions') and details what information is included ('sync health, timestamps, login requirements, error states').

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 check when accounts were last synced or to identify connections needing attention.' It distinguishes this from other tools by focusing on connection health rather than account data, transactions, or other financial metrics provided by siblings.

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