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 ('Formatted list...with dates, ratings, and notes'), which is helpful. However, omits pagination behavior, data freshness guarantees, or what happens when no history 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?

Uses structured 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections that efficiently organize information. First sentence establishes purpose immediately. Slightly verbose repetition of default values already present in schema, but overall well-structured.

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?

Appropriate for a read-only query tool with two optional parameters. Explains return values despite existence of output schema (per context signals). Could mention pagination for large histories, but sufficient for this complexity level.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates by documenting both parameters: 'days' includes semantics (lookback period) and default value; 'cuisine' notes filtering purpose. Loses a point for vague cuisine value format (no examples or constraints provided).

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?

States specific verb 'Show' and resource 'restaurant visit history'. However, lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like 'log_visit' (which records visits) or 'my_reservations' (which could overlap conceptually).

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'my_reservations' or 'log_visit'. Missing prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements) or exclusion criteria.

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