federation-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior by detailing the return values (publicTotal, federationTotal, gapTotal), per-night breakdown, season classification, weekend detection, package pricing, and currency format. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, return values, and key features like breakdowns and pricing details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining return values and behavioral aspects. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors (e.g., invalid dates or property IDs) or performance considerations, which would help an agent use it more effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context by explaining that parameters are used for 'specific property, date range, and guest count,' but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema offers (e.g., format nuances or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed pricing quote'), specifying it's for a property, date range, and guest count. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_availability' (which likely checks availability only) and 'create_booking' (which creates bookings) by focusing on detailed pricing calculations.

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 detailed pricing is needed for a specific property, date range, and guest count, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_properties' (which might return basic pricing) or 'create_booking' (which might include pricing). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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