yazio-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read), openWorldHint=true (may return null for unknown IDs), and idempotentHint=true (safe to retry). The description adds that it retrieves 'detailed information' (implying comprehensive data), which provides useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe error behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information') and specifies the key constraint ('by ID'). Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the scope ('detailed information') and retrieval method. However, without an output schema, it could briefly hint at the return structure (e.g., 'including price, description, etc.') for better completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'id' fully documented as a UUID-formatted Product ID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid IDs or format details). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific product'), making the purpose unambiguous. It specifies retrieval by ID, which distinguishes it from search_products (which likely searches by criteria). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools beyond the resource type.

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 usage when you have a specific product ID and need detailed information. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives (like search_products for when you don't have an ID). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.