AWS MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (health, node count, shards), but lacks operational context such as read-only safety, required permissions, error conditions, or AWS API rate limiting considerations.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action (Get health status) immediately followed by resource identification and specific return value details in parentheses.

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?

Adequately compensates for missing output schema by enumerating return categories (cluster health, node count, shards). However, lacks AWS-specific operational context that would be necessary given this is an infrastructure tool with no annotations covering safety or permissions.

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 profile, region, and domain_name. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, which warrants the baseline score of 3.

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?

States specific verb (Get) and resource (OpenSearch domain health) with parenthetical clarification of returned data (cluster health, node count, shards). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling aws_opensearch_describe_domain by focusing specifically on health metrics rather than general domain configuration.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling aws_opensearch_describe_domain, nor does it mention prerequisites like domain existence or required IAM permissions for AWS access.

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