yazio-mcp

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

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only, open-world, and idempotent operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying the database source ('Yazio database') and the types of optional filters (sex, country, locale), providing context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like result count, pagination, or error conditions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search for food products in Yazio database') and efficiently lists optional parameters. There is no wasted language, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers what the tool does and optional parameters but lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage examples. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is minimally complete but could be more informative.

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 75%, with three parameters having descriptions and one ('sex') lacking a description. The description mentions the optional parameters (sex, country, locale) but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why sex matters or how locales affect results). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description provides minimal additional semantic value.

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 ('search for') and resource ('food products in Yazio database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_product' or 'get_user_suggested_products', which might also retrieve product information. The description is specific about what it searches for but lacks sibling comparison.

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 some context by mentioning optional parameters (sex, country, locale), which implies when to use them, but it doesn't give explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_product' or 'get_user_suggested_products'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred versus others.

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