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 disclosure burden. It effectively documents behavioral inputs (considers weather, recent visit history, group restrictions) and output characteristics (curated list of 3-5 items with reasoning). Missing only side-effect or rate-limit disclosures.

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?

Well-structured with clear summary, Args, and Returns sections. While verbose compared to highly condensed descriptions, the detail is necessary given zero schema coverage. Information is front-loaded and every section earns its place.

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 5 optional parameters and output complexity, the description covers all inputs and describes return values (since no formal output schema exists). Could benefit from mentioning relationship to 'manage_group' for the group parameter, but otherwise complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args section comprehensively documents all 5 parameters, including semantic enums for 'occasion' (date_night, casual, etc.) and valid values for 'location' (home/work/address). The description fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific action ('Get personalized restaurant recommendations') and clearly identifies the resource type. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_restaurants' by emphasizing personalization factors (history, preferences, weather) versus generic search.

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?

While the description implies usage context through personalization emphasis (history, recent visits), it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over 'search_restaurants' or 'search_for_group'. The occasion parameter examples provide implicit usage guidance but no explicit 'when to use/when not to use' statements.

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