bamwor-mcp-server

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 adds some context: it mentions the database size (13.4M cities) and that results include population and country. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which are important for a search operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about the database and return data without unnecessary details, making it efficient 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 tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic operation and return data, but lacks information on output format, error cases, or performance considerations, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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, providing clear details for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the search is by name and returns matching cities, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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: 'Search for cities worldwide by name.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('cities'), and scope ('worldwide'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_cities_by_country' or 'search_countries', which is why it doesn't score a 5.

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 sibling tools like 'list_cities_by_country' or 'search_countries', nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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