Customer requests sent to a shop, newest first, with trade, town, ZIP, photo ids, the customer's text inside an untrusted wrapper, and a new-account flag (owner or office). The street address and the customer's contact details come only after the customer picks your reply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| shop_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| pledge | Yes | ||
| prices | Yes | ||
| stripe_fee | Yes |
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 behavioral burden and does well by disclosing newest-first ordering, untrusted customer text wrapping, the new-account flag, and the privacy gate on street address and contact details. It still omits auth requirements, pagination behavior, and whether the status filter changes the result set.
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?
The definition is two tight sentences, front-loading the resource and sort order before the important privacy caveat. Every clause contributes either scope, returned data, or a behavioral constraint.
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?
The output schema covers return values, and the description adds useful context about untrusted content and delayed contact details. It remains incomplete for a 2-parameter tool because it does not explain the optional status filter or mention pagination limits.
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 0%, and the description never explains either parameter. 'Sent to a shop' only vaguely implies shop_id, while the status enum and its filtering role are completely unaddressed in the description.
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 clearly establishes that this is the shop-facing inbox of incoming customer requests, including sort order and returned fields. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'list' or name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a fully distinguishing 5.
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?
Usage is implied: this is the pre-reply view of customer requests, and the second sentence explains that street address and contact details are unavailable until the customer picks a reply. No explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools are named.
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.