roamzy_me

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

The description discloses a critical side effect: in anonymous mode, the first authed call auto-mints a new account. This directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true, which implies the tool performs no writes. The annotation and description conflict, so per the rubric this is an annotation contradiction and scores 1.

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 three sentences, with the purpose in the first sentence and the two necessary warnings in the following sentences. Every sentence provides essential value and there is no redundant detail. The structure is front-loaded and well-organized.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so explaining return values is unnecessary. The description covers the one non-obvious behavior (anonymous account auto-minting) and provides clear usage context. Given the tool's simplicity and the output schema, the description is adequately complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does add behavioral context around the no-parameter call by explaining that the first call may create an account. No parameter information is missing.

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 begins with 'Get current Roamzy account info', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like roamzy_status (which reports system status) and roamzy_list_countries (which lists country data). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly warns that MCP connectivity does not imply an existing Roamzy account, and instructs the agent to wait until roamzy_me or roamzy_create_order returns successfully before telling the user they're a customer. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming an alternative tool.

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