Check Datawrapper Connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: a misconfigured Authorization header fails silently to a different account rather than erroring, which is exactly the diagnostic nuance an agent needs. It does not say what happens when the token itself is invalid.

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 '⚠️ DATAWRAPPER MCP TOOL ⚠️ / This is part of the Datawrapper MCP server integration. / ---' block is pure boilerplate that pushes the actual purpose statement down. The remaining sentences are tight and well-structured, but roughly a third of the text is filler.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return value (the reported account email), the description supplies the operational context an agent needs. Minor gap: it does not describe behavior on an invalid or expired token.

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% and the access_token description already explains the provided-vs-omitted behavior, including the BYOK header and DATAWRAPPER_ACCESS_TOKEN env var fallback. The prose description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check which Datawrapper account is currently authenticated.' That is immediately distinguishable from every sibling, all of which perform chart CRUD or export operations. An agent can select this tool without ambiguity.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to troubleshoot access issues,' with a concrete failure scenario (per-user Authorization header silently falling back to another account). It does not name a when-not case or an alternative tool, but no sibling competes for this purpose.

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