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 and successfully discloses the side effect on search/recommendation results and the personal scope ('your blacklist'). However, it lacks details on idempotency, error handling for invalid restaurant names, or persistence guarantees.

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 with clear Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and maintains appropriate length, though the Returns section is somewhat redundant given the output schema context.

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 three parameters with zero schema coverage, the description adequately compensates with Args documentation. It covers the tool's primary effect and return confirmation, appropriate for a moderately complex mutation tool with an output schema.

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 compensates effectively by documenting all three parameters: it clarifies restaurant_name, provides the specific enum values for action ('add'/'remove'), and explains reason's purpose. This adds substantial value beyond the raw 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 specific verbs ('Add or remove') and the resource ('restaurants from your blacklist'), then explains the functional consequence ('will never appear in search results or recommendations') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_wishlist.

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 implies usage through the side effect explanation (use when you want to hide restaurants from search), but lacks explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison to siblings like manage_wishlist or search_restaurants.

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