plaid-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is retrieved but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly, though it could be slightly more structured with additional details.

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 complexity (data retrieval with one parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error cases, or how the parameter affects the query, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand full usage.

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 input schema has one parameter (account_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention parameters at all. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's role or semantics. With no parameter information in the description, it adds no value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 retrieves specific identity data (names, emails, phones, addresses) from an institution, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_accounts_tool' or 'get_balances_tool', which might also involve account data but for different purposes, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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, such as whether it's for a specific account or all accounts, or how it relates to siblings like 'list_accounts_tool'. It implies usage for identity data but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites, resulting in minimal actionable guidance.

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