Maître d'MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. Description mentions external platforms and return format but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: requires prior credential storage (evident from store_*_credentials siblings), potential API costs (api_costs sibling exists), error handling for unavailable slots, and idempotency concerns. Lacks disclosure of mutation consequences.

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 purpose statement upfront followed by constraint. Args section is necessary given poor schema coverage. Returns section is somewhat redundant given output schema exists, and docstring format adds slight verbosity, but overall efficient with no wasted sentences.

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?

Covers core functionality and all parameters well. However, for a complex external integration tool with 5 parameters and authentication dependencies (evident from sibling tools), it lacks critical context about credential prerequisites, cost implications, and error scenarios that would help an agent handle failures gracefully.

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 Args section comprehensively compensates by documenting all 5 parameters with clear semantics and concrete examples (e.g., date formats '2026-02-14'/'Saturday', time formats '19:00'/'7:00 PM', special_requests examples). Essential given schema lacks descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Book a reservation at a restaurant via Resy or OpenTable' with specific verb (book), resource (reservation/restaurant), and platform mechanism. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like check_availability (query) and cancel_reservation (deletion).

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite 'Only call this after the user has confirmed they want to book', preventing premature invocation. However, omits mention that check_availability should logically precede booking and fails to reference credential storage requirements implied by store_resy_credentials/store_opentable_credentials siblings.

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