NewRelic MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool is a 'local utility that does not make API calls' (clarifying it's not a network operation), supports specific time formats (relative and absolute), and mentions use cases. However, it doesn't cover potential error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by format support, use cases, and behavioral clarification. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, supported formats, use cases, and behavioral characteristics. However, it doesn't describe the return format (epoch milliseconds) or potential error scenarios, which would be helpful for a conversion utility.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions supported time formats generally but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details for the parameters.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('convert human-readable time strings to epoch milliseconds') and resources (time strings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a local utility for time conversion rather than an API-based analysis or query tool.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for constructing NRQL time ranges or comparing timestamps'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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