Maître d'MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format ('Numbered list...with details') which adds value, but omits behavioral details like empty result handling, pagination, or caching behavior expected for a list 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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, Args documentation, and Returns documentation. Every sentence earns its place; no verbosity or tautology. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with existing output schema, the description provides adequate coverage: it explains the parameter, the filtering behavior, and the return format. While additional behavioral details would help, it meets the bar for completeness given the tool's simplicity.

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 description compensates effectively via the 'Args:' section, explaining 'tag' semantics ('Filter by a single tag') and providing a concrete example ('date night'). This compensates for the undocumented schema property.

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?

Clear verb 'Show' and resource 'restaurant wishlist' establish specific purpose. However, it fails to explicitly distinguish from sibling 'manage_wishlist' (modification vs. viewing) or clarify read-only nature.

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?

Mentions optional filtering ('optionally filtered by tag') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_restaurants' or 'manage_wishlist'. Sibling differentiation is absent.

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