Excel Finance MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or generative operation, what permissions might be needed, how recommendations are formatted, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about the tool's behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 complexity (tax planning with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data, failing to provide enough context for the agent to use the tool effectively without guesswork.

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 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'currentIncome' or 'projectedIncome' represent (e.g., annual, monthly), or how 'entityType' influences strategies. With 3 required parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 'Get tax planning strategy recommendations' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('tax planning strategy recommendations'), but it's vague about what 'get' entails—whether it's generating, retrieving, or calculating strategies. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'business_tax_summary' or 'tax_projection_scenarios', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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. With siblings like 'business_tax_summary' and 'tax_projection_scenarios', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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