AWS FinOps MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about permissions required, rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the results will be in, or any error conditions. For a tool with 6 authentication parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 what it does convey, though it's under-specified rather than concise.

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 tool has 6 parameters (all authentication-related with 0% schema coverage), no annotations, and sibling tools that suggest this is part of a cost/optimization analysis system, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't help the agent understand what 'old types' means, what authentication approach to use, or how this fits into broader optimization workflows.

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 none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about any parameters - not even mentioning that authentication parameters exist. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about what inputs are needed.

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 verb ('find') and resource ('EBS volumes using previous generation volume types'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_unused_volumes' or 'find_unencrypted_ebs_volumes', but the specific focus on 'old types' provides reasonable implicit distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from other volume-related tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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