Kohl's own search-box typeahead suggestions for a partial query: a flat list of suggested search phrases, no product data. A nonsense query returns a genuine, well-formed empty list rather than an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the result is a flat phrase list with no product data, and a nonsense query yields a well-formed empty list rather than an error — a non-obvious edge case an agent should plan for.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The core identity (Kohl's typeahead phrase list, not product data) is front-loaded and the empty-list behavior is a second, distinct point that 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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, this covers purpose, return shape, and the empty-result edge case without needing to restate return values. Minor gaps remain (no hint about how many suggestions are returned or any rate/throttle behavior), but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.
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 0% and the single 'query' parameter has no description, so the description carries the burden. It compensates by clarifying that the input is a partial/prefix string for typeahead rather than a full search term, which materially changes how an agent should populate it. No format or length limits are given, so it is not a 5.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Kohl's own search-box typeahead suggestions') and immediately scopes the output ('a flat list of suggested search phrases, no product data'), which distinguishes it from any product or category lookup. An agent knows exactly what it gets back without opening the schema.
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 'for a partial query' implies the intended autocomplete use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. browsing kohls_category) that should be preferred for non-prefix lookups. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.
