Wisnu MCP

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 mentions the return type ('Dictionary with travel tips') but fails to describe key traits like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, data sources, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by structured sections for arguments and returns. Each sentence serves a clear function, with no redundant information. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly into the flow, slightly affecting readability.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps for a tool in this context.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters ('destination' and 'trip_type') and provides basic semantics ('Destination city or country' and 'Type of trip'), which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the enum values for 'trip_type' or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low coverage, this is a minimal but adequate effort.

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 ('travel tips and recommendations for a destination'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_destinations', which might also provide destination-related information, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 like 'search_destinations' or other siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether it's for planning or post-booking, and offers no exclusions or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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