Excel Finance MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'calculate' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this is a simulation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a financial calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a calculation tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 financial calculation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the calculation methodology, output format, or provide enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively compared to other tax calculations.

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% schema description coverage (no parameter descriptions in the schema), the description provides no information about the three parameters (annualIncome, filingStatus, selfEmployed). The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean, how they affect the calculation, or provide any context beyond what's in the bare schema. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 'Calculate estimated quarterly tax payments' clearly states the verb ('calculate') and resource ('estimated quarterly tax payments'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'calculate_federal_income_tax' or 'calculate_self_employment_tax', which are also tax-related calculations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple tax calculation tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'calculate_federal_income_tax', 'calculate_self_employment_tax', 'calculate_state_taxes'), there's no indication of when estimated quarterly taxes are appropriate versus annual calculations or other tax types.

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