Fetch normalized detail for one Cole Haan product handle on the fixed storefront. Use colehaan_products to browse catalog items or colehaan_search_suggest to resolve a partial query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Required. Product handle (URL slug). |
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context ('normalized detail', 'fixed storefront'), which signals a single-source catalog, but says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or what happens when a handle is unknown. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the routing alternatives follow immediately, so the agent gets both what-it-does and when-to-use-otherwise in one scan.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus the schema fully cover the single parameter. The description is complete enough to call correctly; only minor behavioral context (behavior on missing handles) is absent.
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 100% and the single 'handle' param is documented in-schema as a required URL slug. The description adds the concept that the handle resolves against the fixed storefront but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 ('Fetch'), resource ('normalized detail for one Cole Haan product handle'), and scope ('on the fixed storefront'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling colehaan_products (browse) and colehaan_search_suggest (resolve partial query), so an agent can tell them apart without opening any 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?
Names two concrete alternatives and the condition that selects each: 'colehaan_products to browse catalog items' and 'colehaan_search_suggest to resolve a partial query.' The routing decision is fully specified rather than left to inference.
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.
