WooCommerce MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid order IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource (notes), scope (on an order), and types (internal staff and customer-facing). No unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and only 1 parameter, the description is reasonably complete for a simple list operation. However, with no annotations and the need to fully document behavior, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation and any access requirements. The presence of an output schema elevates the score from what it would be otherwise.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the tool operates on 'an order' which maps to the 'order_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to find it, or provide examples. With only 1 parameter and some contextual mapping, this meets the baseline for minimal parameter guidance.

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 'List' and resource 'notes on an order', specifying both internal staff notes and customer-facing notes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_orders' or 'get_order' by focusing specifically on notes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_order_note' in the description text itself.

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 prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare with sibling tools like 'get_order' (which might include notes) or 'create_order_note'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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