Sakila MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does (analysis/classification), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether it requires specific permissions, or how the classification algorithm works. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - just two Japanese sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and classification method. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.

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, no output schema, and the description's limited scope, this is incomplete for a data analysis tool. The description explains what the tool does but not what it returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns customer segmentation data, more context about output format and analysis characteristics would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it focuses on the tool's core functionality instead.

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: '顧客セグメント分析を行います' (performs customer segment analysis) and specifies the classification criteria ('利用頻度・金額で顧客を自動分類します' - automatically classifies customers by usage frequency and amount). This is specific about the verb (analyze/classify) and resource (customers), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_customer_activity' or 'get_customer_details'.

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. With multiple customer-related sibling tools (get_customer_activity, get_customer_details, get_customer_rentals, search_customers, get_top_customers), there's no indication of when this segmentation analysis is appropriate versus other customer data retrieval tools.

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