browseA page of Dining Co'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 behavioral burden. It does disclose pagination and the 50-item page cap, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about read-only safety, authentication, what happens past the last page, or the default sort order.
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 dense sentence with no filler, and the resource (products) is front-loaded ahead of the optional modifiers. Slightly list-like mid-sentence, but nothing is wasted.
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 exists, so the description should say more about the shape of a returned page and how `page` behaves at the boundary. It covers the filtering and page-size semantics reasonably but is thin for a 5-parameter listing tool with no annotations to lean on.
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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It glosses category ('path or name'), in_stock_only, sort, and the page-size ceiling, but leaves `page` unmentioned and gives no detail on how 'sorted' interacts with the enum values. It roughly mirrors the schema rather than filling its gaps.
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 names a concrete resource (Dining Co's products) and states the operation is a paginated retrieval, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools `search`, `filter`, or `product`, which also appear to return products — a browsing-vs-searching distinction is left implicit.
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 phrasing 'optionally within a category, in stock only, sorted' implies the use case (browse the catalog with optional narrowing) but never says when to reach for this over `search` or `filter`. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.