Wisnu MCP

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 mentions what the tool returns ('Dictionary with destination recommendations'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the recommendations take, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how comprehensive the recommendations are. The description is minimal and leaves many behavioral questions unanswered.

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 uses minimal words to convey essential information. The purpose statement is front-loaded, and each section serves a clear purpose without redundancy. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter explanations more naturally rather than as a separate 'Args' section.

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 that there's an output schema (though not shown in the context), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks important context about when to use it versus siblings, behavioral constraints, and operational details. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It provides meaningful context for all three parameters: 'interests' gets examples like 'beach, culture, adventure, food', 'budget_range' is explained as 'Budget category', and 'season' as 'Preferred travel season'. This adds substantial value beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't fully explain the enum values or default behaviors.

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 'Get destination recommendations based on interests and preferences' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('destination recommendations'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_flights' or 'search_hotels', but the focus on recommendations rather than specific bookings or costs provides some implicit distinction.

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 sibling tools like 'calculate_trip_cost', 'get_travel_tips', 'search_flights', and 'search_hotels', there's no indication of when this recommendation tool should be selected over those more specific tools or how they might complement each other.

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