Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about it being 'Enklare än fritextsökning' (simpler than free-text search), which helps set expectations, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details.

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 appropriately sized with three concise sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, the second gives examples, and the third explains the advantage. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity and differentiation without redundancy.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and differentiation. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at the return format or data structure, though annotations help mitigate this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (operating_area and limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by giving examples ('Utbildning', 'Vård') and mentioning it returns 'alla KPIs' (all KPIs), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Hämta' - Get) and resource ('alla KPIs' - all KPIs), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying filtering by operating area. It explicitly contrasts with 'fritextsökning' (free-text search), helping differentiate from tools like search_kpis.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to find KPIs within a specific operating area like 'Utbildning' or 'Vård'. It mentions this is simpler than free-text search, implying an alternative, but doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or specific sibling alternatives beyond the general contrast.

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