plaid-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the search behavior ('fuzzy search'). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format (though output schema exists), or side effects. For a search tool with 4 parameters, this minimal disclosure is inadequate for informed use.

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 with zero wasted words, front-loading the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't explain parameters or behavioral context. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. The tool is relatively simple (search function), so the description is minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate but only implies 'query' for search. It doesn't explain 'start_date', 'end_date', or 'limit' parameters, their formats, or how they interact with the fuzzy search. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 action ('fuzzy search') and target resources ('transaction description and merchant name'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transactions_tool' or 'search_transactions_tool' (if present), but the search focus is specific enough for basic clarity.

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 like 'get_transactions_tool' or 'refresh_transactions_tool'. It mentions 'fuzzy search' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over exact matches or other filtering methods, leaving usage context implied at best.

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