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. It mentions that the tool 'Search for available flights' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, such as examples for parameters and return format. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the return info into the main flow, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and notes the return format, but lacks behavioral context like search limitations or integration details. The output schema exists, so it doesn't need to detail return values, but overall completeness is adequate with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'Origin airport code (e.g., "JFK", "LAX")' and 'Optional return date in YYYY-MM-DD format for round trips'), which clarifies usage beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully cover all nuances, such as format constraints for dates or cabin class implications, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 'Search for available flights between two locations,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_hotels and search_destinations by focusing on flights. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from calculate_trip_cost, which might overlap in functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 when to choose search_flights over calculate_trip_cost or get_travel_tips, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicit, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.

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