UK Food Hygiene MCP

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses a result cap and that the tool is a free peek, but it does not clarify read-only behavior, permissions, return format, or whether size changes the maximum. 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' adds little usable behavioral context.

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 definition is short and front-loads the key preview constraint. However, 'Soft-Offer outbound is OFF' is cryptic internal jargon that does not clearly help an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough to attempt a call. It remains incomplete because it omits the meaning of size, return expectations, and its relationship to the pack-based siblings.

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 only 50%: area has a minimal example and size has no schema description. The description clarifies that area is a place name and states a max of 5, but it never explains what the size parameter controls or how it interacts with that cap.

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 resource clearly: Food Hygiene Rating Scheme establishments for a place name, with a preview cap of 5. It does not name or differentiate from siblings hygiene_pack and redeem_pack, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Free peek, max 5' hints at preview use, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It never explains how this relates to hygiene_pack or redeem_pack.

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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a cost (£0.49) and that the return is a Stripe Checkout URL, which is useful, but it does not explain whether calling the tool initiates a purchase, what happens after checkout, or how redeem_pack relates to it. "Soft-Offer outbound is OFF" is unexplained internal jargon.

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 short, but it is structured as disconnected fragments rather than a front-loaded explanation. "Soft-Offer outbound is OFF" is unclear and does not appear to earn its place without further context.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return URL but does not explain how size affects the pack, what the checkout flow entails, or what the agent should do after receiving the URL.

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 for both parameters. It clarifies that area corresponds to a place name, but the optional size parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 indicates a paid pack product that returns a Stripe Checkout URL for Food Hygiene Rating Scheme establishments by place name. However, it lacks a clear action verb such as "create" or "retrieve", and the opening phrase "Paid pack" is vague rather than stating precisely what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like hygiene_discover or redeem_pack. The phrase "Paid pack" implies a purchasing context, but the description never states prerequisites, alternatives, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about side effects (does it grant entitlements or credit a pack?), idempotency on repeated redemption, error behavior for unpaid/invalid sessions, or required auth, all of which are essential for an unreversible-sounding redemption operation.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; a single fragmentary sentence that reads like a heading and conveys almost nothing front-loaded.

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-style tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description provides none of the context needed to invoke it correctly or interpret the result.

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% and the single required parameter session_id is completely undocumented in the description. The agent gets no indication that the identifier is a Stripe Checkout session ID, what format it takes, or how to obtain it.

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 text reads as a title fragment ('How to redeem...') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It gestures at the resource (a paid Stripe Checkout session) but never says the tool actually performs the redemption or returns anything, leaving the verb ambiguous.

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?

Mentioning 'paid' implies this only applies to completed checkout sessions, which is a faint usage cue. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools epc_pack or epc_discover, which are plausible alternatives an agent would need to disambiguate against.

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