yazio-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation with open-ended data and repeatable results. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'suggestions' entail (e.g., algorithm, freshness). It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers minimal extra context, meeting the lower bar with annotations present.

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: 'Get product suggestions for the user'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part earns its place by stating the tool's purpose directly, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, personalization aspects, or differentiation from siblings. With annotations handling key behavioral traits, it's complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

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 clear descriptions for 'query' (optional search) and 'limit' (maximum results). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as how 'query' influences suggestions or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Get product suggestions for the user', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'product suggestions', but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_product' or 'search_products', nor does it clarify what makes these suggestions 'for the user' (e.g., personalized vs. general). This is a basic, functional statement without specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'get_product' or 'search_products', nor does it specify contexts like personalization, recommendation scenarios, or prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the name, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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