Maître d'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 partially satisfies this by describing the return value as a 'Formatted table,' but fails to disclose what 'providers' refers to (likely OpenTable/Resy given siblings), whether this operation is cached or hits live endpoints, cost implications, or rate limits. It does correctly imply this is read-only via 'Show'.

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 uses a structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that is clear and front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly verbose compared to single-sentence descriptions, the structure is appropriate for the parameter documentation needed given poor schema coverage. No sentences are wasted.

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 placement among restaurant reservation APIs, the description inadequately explains the domain context—it should clarify that this tracks costs for the third-party restaurant APIs (OpenTable/Resy) managed by this server. While it documents the single parameter and mentions output format, the lack of domain linkage to siblings creates ambiguity about which APIs' costs are being tracked.

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 0% description coverage (the 'days' property has no description field), requiring the description to compensate. The Args section successfully provides this: 'Number of days to look back (default 30)' explains both the semantics and default value, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Show[s] API usage costs broken down by provider' with a specific verb (Show) and resource (API usage costs). However, given that all 19 siblings are restaurant/reservation management tools (make_reservation, store_opentable_credentials, etc.), the description fails to clarify that this tracks costs for those specific restaurant APIs (OpenTable/Resy), which would help distinguish its purpose within this domain context.

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 does not indicate whether this should be checked periodically, before/after heavy usage, or how it relates to the credential storage tools. No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisites are mentioned.

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