One answer in full: the direct answer first, then price tables with the source and the date they were checked, the repair-or-replace rule and its limits, and the FAQs. Every price range carries where the number came from.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The topic slug from list_answer_topics | |
| trade | Yes | e.g. hvac |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the response structure (direct answer, price tables, repair-or-replace rule, FAQs) and that price ranges include sources and dates. However, it doesn't mention potential costs, rate limits, or whether the answer is generated dynamically or static.
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 concise and front-loaded with the key output structure. Every sentence adds value, though the first sentence is a bit dense.
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 no output schema, the description does a decent job of explaining the return format. However, it doesn't clarify the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., how trade and slug interact) or what happens if the slug is invalid. The sibling list suggests list_answer_topics is a prerequisite, but that's not stated.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 focuses on the output structure rather than stating a clear verb+resource. It implies 'get an answer' but doesn't explicitly say 'Retrieves the full answer for a topic.' It distinguishes from siblings by describing the answer content, but the purpose is somewhat implicit.
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 by describing what the tool returns, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives. Sibling names suggest list_answer_topics is for finding slugs, but the description doesn't mention that relationship.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.