Wisnu MCP

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 the tool calculates 'estimated' costs, implying approximation rather than exact figures, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether calculations are real-time, if currency conversion is handled, what assumptions are made, or whether results are cached. For a financial calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and appropriately sized. The opening statement is front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information. Minor room for improvement in eliminating the redundant 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels since the structure already implies these sections.

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 (5 parameters, financial calculations), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It explains parameters well and notes the return format, but lacks context about calculation methodology, currency handling, rounding behavior, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other contextual gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate - and it does so effectively by explaining all 5 parameters in the Args section. Each parameter gets a clear semantic explanation beyond just naming them: 'Cost of flights per person', 'Hotel cost per night', 'Number of nights', 'Estimated daily expenses per person (default: $100)', and 'Number of travelers (default: 1)'. This provides meaningful context that the bare schema lacks.

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 as 'Calculate total estimated trip cost' with a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('trip cost'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_travel_tips or search_flights by focusing on cost calculation rather than information retrieval or search. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential overlapping tools like budget planners.

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. While sibling tools like search_flights and search_hotels are clearly for finding options rather than calculating costs, there's no explicit mention of when this tool is appropriate versus when to use other cost estimation methods or tools. No prerequisites, limitations, or comparison context is provided.

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