Filtrous MCP Catalog Server

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the API-key requirement, the 'when permitted' conditional on stock, and an honest caveat that tier pricing and lead time are placeholders until the Acumatica sync ships. That last point is exactly the kind of data-quality disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability before the auth prerequisite and the placeholder caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical '(when permitted)' is slightly vague.

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?

For a single-SKU lookup with no output schema, the description does enough: it names the returned fields (price, availability, stock) and warns that lead time and tier pricing are not yet real. It stops short of describing return format or error behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'sku' fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail about the SKU, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and concrete resources (current price, availability, stock) scoped to a SKU. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_product_details and request_quote, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is for pricing lookups on a known SKU, and the 'KEYED tool — requires a valid API key' line gives a real prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_product_details or request_quote, and no exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: 'Open tool — no API key required,' which tells the agent no auth setup is needed. It stops short of describing error behavior for a missing handle or any pagination/size limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The core purpose and its field list come first, with the auth note following as a short parenthetical-style clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return payload, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. For a simple read-by-handle tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the handle and gives an example. The description adds no format or normalization detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (full details for one product), scope (by its handle), and enumerates the returned content (variants, SKUs, options, prices, images, spec metafields). It clearly reads as the detail-fetch counterpart to search_products, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'by its handle' signals this is a follow-up lookup after obtaining a handle elsewhere, and the schema references search_products as the source. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or contrast with get_price_and_lead_time or request_quote.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context: it is a KEYED tool requiring a valid API key, and the follow-up happens out-of-band, so the agent knows there is no synchronous result to wait on.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the auth constraint and the post-submission behavior. Little waste, though the value-add content is compressed.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and nested objects, the description covers auth requirements and the asynchronous follow-up, which are the key behavioral gaps. It does not mention limits (e.g. max 50 items), but those live in the schema.

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 coverage is 67% and each parameter is described in the schema. The description only summarizes 'one or more SKUs with buyer contact info', mapping to items and contact but adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: submit a quote request for SKUs with buyer contact info. It is clearly a mutation/request tool, distinguishable from the read-only siblings (get_price_and_lead_time, get_product_details, search_products), though it never names those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the read-oriented siblings, nor on prerequisites beyond the API key. The only implicit cue is that it submits a request rather than fetching pricing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the auth posture ('Open tool — no API key required') and the return fields, which matters because no output schema exists. Pagination/truncation behavior is not disclosed, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. The return-field enumeration earns its place because there is no output schema to convey it.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, and the shape of the result set. The only omission is what happens when results are truncated or how to page beyond 'limit', which is a minor gap given the schema's maximum of 50.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the field-filter syntax ('product_type:...', 'tag:...'). The description's query example adds a little concreteness but no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search the Filtrous catalog') and clarifies scope with a concrete query example ('0.22 micron PES syringe filter'). It is clearly distinguishable from get_product_details and get_price_and_lead_time, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer you search here to discover products and then drill in with the sibling tools, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is stated. The 'no API key required' note is a helpful prerequisite hint rather than guidance on tool selection.

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