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. It only states the action ('取得します' - get) without detailing what '統計情報' (statistics) includes, whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its content, 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 complexity of a statistical tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral traits like data freshness or aggregation methods. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'store_id' well-documented in the schema itself (including type, enum values, and a note that omitting it returns all stores). The description adds no additional parameter information, but with high schema coverage and only one optional parameter, the baseline is appropriately high as the schema handles the semantics effectively.

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 '店舗の統計情報を取得します' (Get store statistics) states a clear verb ('取得します' - get) and resource ('店舗の統計情報' - store statistics), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_revenue_summary' or 'get_category_performance' that might also provide statistical information, making it somewhat vague in context.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent with no explicit or implied direction on tool selection among the many sibling tools.

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