browseA page of Decor Depot's products, optionally within a category (path or name), in stock only, sorted. Up to 50 per page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | order of the results | |
| category | No | a category path (e.g. coffee/espresso-machines) or name | |
| page_size | No | ||
| in_stock_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the pagination cap ('Up to 50 per page') and that results are sorted and optionally stock-filtered. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, default sort order, default page, or what a returned page contains, leaving real behavioral gaps for a 5-param 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?
A single, densely packed sentence with the resource front-loaded and qualifiers trailing; no filler. It is efficient, though the compressed phrasing makes a few clauses (path or name, sorted) slightly ambiguous.
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?
No output schema and no annotations means the description must cover behavior, and it only partially does: pagination, defaults, and the nature of the returned page are not specified. Adequate for a simple browse tool but missing pieces an agent would want.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "A page of Decor Depot's products, optionally within a category (path or name), in stock only, sorted" conveys that this is a read operation returning a page, states the category-accepting behavior, and discloses the sort and stock constraints. However, it omits default sort ordering, pagination cursor/page behavior beyond the cap, and the shape of returned results. For a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, this is informative but incomplete.
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 concrete verb (browse/return a page) and resource (Decor Depot's products), plus scope modifiers (category, in-stock, sorted). It is clear what the tool does but never distinguishes itself from close siblings like search or filter, which could also return product listings.
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 a browsing/marketplace scenario via 'optionally within a category' and 'in stock only', but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names search, filter, or product as the alternatives for narrower queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.