Kolada MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context about what information is returned (operating areas with KPI counts) and the purpose (overview of available data types), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and value. The first sentence states what it does, the second explains why it's useful. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 comprehensive annotations, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format (e.g., structure of operating area objects).

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 description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on what the tool returns.

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 lists operating areas with KPI counts, providing an overview of available data types. It uses specific verbs ('Lista alla') and resources ('verksamhetsområden'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_kpis_by_operating_area'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it gives an overview of available data types, but doesn't specify use cases or contrast with sibling tools that might also provide operating area information.

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