browseA page of Seating 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 discloses the page-size cap ('Up to 50 per page') and that filters are optional, but says nothing about default sort/page behavior, result shape, total counts, or error cases for a paginated list endpoint.
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 compact sentences with filters front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Up to 50 per page' fragment is slightly detached but earns its place by conveying the page-size limit.
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 5-parameter paginated list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits pagination defaults, sort default, and any sense of what the returned page contains, which the agent needs since structured fields provide no coverage.
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 40%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies category accepts a path or name, notes in-stock-only and sorting semantics, and confirms the 50-item page cap. It leaves `page` and default values unexplained, so the gap is only partly closed.
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 states a clear resource and action: a paginated page of products with optional category, stock, and sort filters. It is specific enough for an agent to know what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search or filter, which could plausibly serve overlapping needs.
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 guidance on when to use browse versus search or filter, even though those siblings exist and overlap. The description only implies usage (listing without a query), leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.