Kolada MCP Server

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral information: read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds some useful context about gender filtering options (T/M/K/all) and the benchmarking use case, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data format is returned. With good annotation coverage, the description adds moderate value.

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 - just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality, use case, and a key feature (gender filtering). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.

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 read-only comparison tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the core purpose, mentions the benchmarking use case, and highlights gender filtering. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't indicate what format the comparison results will be returned in, but given the tool's relative simplicity and good annotation coverage, this is a minor limitation.

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 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions gender filtering (T/M/K) which aligns with the 'gender' parameter's enum values, but doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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: comparing a specific key figure (KPI) across multiple municipalities for given years, with gender filtering. It uses specific verbs ('jämför' - compare) and resources ('nyckeltal' - key figure, 'kommuner' - municipalities). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its many siblings like 'analyze_kpi_across_municipalities' or 'compare_kpis', which appear similar in function.

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 some usage context by stating it's 'excellent for benchmarking' and supports gender filtering, which implies when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_kpi_across_municipalities' or 'compare_kpis', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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