etsy-tags-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it pulls from 'live Google autocomplete' (so results reflect real shopper searches), returns up to 15 tags, and enforces Etsy's 20-character limit. This goes beyond the basic action and informs the user about constraints and data source, providing strong behavioral transparency for a simple read-only tool.

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 sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding two precise behavioral details (return count and character limit). Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, the input format, the output quantity and length constraint, and the data source. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage and already gives a clear description with examples: 'What you sell, e.g. personalized necklace, dog portrait, digital planner.' The tool description adds only a brief restatement ('Input: what you sell') without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb 'Suggest' and a clear object: 'long-tail Etsy tags for a product'. It also names the data source ('live Google autocomplete') and the output scope, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. With no sibling tools, this effectively distinguishes itself as the tool for generating Etsy tag ideas.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need tag ideas for an Etsy product, and it explicitly states the input ('what you sell'). It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but those are unnecessary given there are no sibling tools and the use case is well-specified.

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