Gulf Coast Wellness & Recovery Spa Website MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the concrete output formats (Markdown vs stripped text) and the 40,000-character cap, which are behavioral details not covered by annotations. This adds value beyond the structured data.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every element earns its place: the URL scope, the output format, and the character limit. Extremely efficient and clear.

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 is a simple read operation with a single parameter repeated in the schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'stripped text' means or how to specify the format (since there's no format parameter, it implies the agent can select, but that might be a minor gap). Output schema is absent, so the description doesn't need to cover return values. The tool is simple enough that missing details are unlikely to cause incorrect invocation.

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 schema has one parameter 'url' with type 'uri' and no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on the url parameter, but the parameter format is obvious from the schema (a URI). Since there is only one parameter and its purpose is evident from the tool's name and the description's mention of the site, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not significantly add meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Read'), the specific resource (https://gcwars.com page), and the output formats (Markdown or stripped text). It also includes a useful limit (40,000 characters). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_pages and site_info, which perform different operations.

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 implies usage: when you need to read a page from that site. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the tool name and description make it clear. There's no 'when not to use' guidance, but it's not misleading. It could mention that search_pages is for finding pages, but this is implicit.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds the 'sitemap search' scoping and the output format (URLs with match score), which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or exact matching semantics, so it only partially extends beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the output. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, method, and output. It lacks explicit usage guidance and edge-case handling, but the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety reduce the need for more detail. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the query parameter as 'words in their URL path', which gives clear semantics. However, it does not describe the 'limit' parameter at all, though its meaning is fairly obvious from the schema (default, min, max). The description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented, so a score of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb ('find'), a specific resource ('pages on gcwars.com'), and a clear method ('by words in their URL path (sitemap search)'). It also clarifies the output ('Returns URLs with a match score'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like read_page and site_info.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. Given the existence of siblings, this is a notable gap.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool provides links to sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents, which is useful, but it does not disclose output format or whether links are live. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the site name and purpose and compactly lists the included link types. The phrase 'every discovery document' is slightly vague, but there is no wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it tells the agent what kind of information and links will be returned. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the simple info-tool nature lowers the burden.

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, so no parameter explanation is needed; the baseline of 4 applies because the schema fully covers the empty parameter set.

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 identifies the tool as returning an overview of Gulf Coast Wellness & Recovery Spa (gcwars.com), including links to sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents. This distinguishes it from siblings read_page and search_pages, though it lacks a strong verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The wording implies this is a starting point for site discovery, but an agent is not told when to choose site_info over read_page or search_pages.

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