Maître d'MCP

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

With zero annotations, the description carries full burden. It adequately discloses persistence ('review was saved') and side effects ('improve future recommendations'), but omits error handling, idempotency, or validation rules (e.g., verifying the restaurant exists).

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 docstring format with clear Args/Returns sections. Minor redundancy ('future recs' appears twice). Front-loaded purpose sentence is effective. Returns section is present despite output schema existing, which is acceptable but not strictly necessary.

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 6 parameters with empty schema, the description achieves completeness by fully documenting each parameter's semantics and providing return value description. Lacks only advanced behavioral edge cases (duplicate ratings, restaurant existence validation).

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. Documents all 6 parameters with constraints (1-5 stars, enum values for noise_level), optionality markers, and rich examples including JSON structure for dishes.

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 specific verb ('Rate') + resource ('restaurant') + scope ('recently visited'). Distinguishes from sibling 'log_visit' by implying evaluation vs mere recording, and from 'get_recommendations' by being a write operation.

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?

Provides implied context ('recently visited', 'improve future recommendations') suggesting when to use, but lacks explicit guidance distinguishing it from 'log_visit' or prerequisites like whether the visit must be logged first.

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