Wild Orange Charters Website MCP

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safe, read-only nature. The description adds value by specifying the domain scope (restricted to wildorangecharters.com), the format (Markdown or stripped text), and a 40,000-character limit, which are useful behavioral details not in annotations. It does not mention potential errors or encoding issues, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It states the action, the resource, the output format options, and a key constraint (40,000 characters) without any filler. Every element serves a purpose, and it is highly effective for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description covers the essential context: the domain scope, output format, and character limit. There is no additional complexity that requires more explanation. The sibling tools are different (search vs. site info), so the description sufficiently defines this tool's role. Complete for its simplicity.

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 only one parameter, 'url', with a format of 'uri'. The description does not add much beyond that, except implicitly that the URL must be from the specified domain (since it says 'one https://wildorangecharters.com page'). Given schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by indicating the domain restriction and the fact that the URL is a page on that site. However, it does not explain that the URL must be reachable or what happens if it's invalid, but the schema format already specifies URI. Since the schema is minimal and the description adds the domain constraint, this is a moderate 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 reads a 'https://wildorangecharters.com' page and returns it as Markdown or text, with a length limit. It specifies the resource (website page) and the action (read), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_pages or site_info, though the scope (specific domain) and format (Markdown) provide some implicit distinction.

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 the tool is for reading specific pages from a particular domain, and mentions output format options (Markdown or text) and a length limit. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, but the context signals and sibling names (search_pages, site_info) suggest this is for direct page content retrieval. Since the description is specific about the domain and format, it provides enough context for an agent to infer usage, though explicit exclusion of alternatives would be stronger.

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, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns URLs with a match score and that it is a sitemap search, giving useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the output format. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the input (query) and output (URLs with match score). It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but the schema's limit and the openWorldHint annotation imply limitations. The tool is complete enough for an agent to call correctly without further clarification.

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. It clarifies that 'query' refers to words in the URL path, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the meaning of the match score in terms of parameter usage. The query parameter's semantics are partially covered, but the limit is left to schema defaults (which are self-explanatory). Overall, partial compensation for low coverage.

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 action (find pages) on a specific resource (wildorangecharters.com) using a clear method (words in URL path, sitemap search). It distinguishes from siblings: read_page likely fetches content, site_info likely provides site metadata, so search_pages is unambiguously the page-search tool.

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 the intended use case: searching for pages by URL-path keywords. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer siblings, but the distinct purposes of read_page and site_info make the choice obvious. Clear context without explicit when-not guidance earns a 4.

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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the content (links to sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents), which is useful beyond annotations. 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('What Wild Orange Charters is') and then lists the link types. It is concise and free of fluff, though the phrasing is slightly informal. It earns its place with no unnecessary words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, and with annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies what the tool returns (links to various documents), which is the key information an agent needs. The term 'discovery document' could be more precise, but overall it is adequate.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. With no parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain anything.

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 that the tool provides information about Wild Orange Charters and lists the types of links it returns (sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents). It is a specific resource description and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings read_page and search_pages, so it lacks strong 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 implies usage for obtaining site overview and links, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_page or search_pages. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, though the purpose is fairly self-evident.

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