Aspen Catalog MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions checking availability but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like response format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful context sentence. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior and output. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter 'titles' as a list of book titles. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'specific book or title' but not providing additional semantics like format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if a specific book or title is available at the library.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('book or title'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_catalog' by focusing on availability rather than broader searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides clear context: 'Useful for filtering book recommendations to only those the library carries.' This implies when to use it—when you need to verify availability for recommendations. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is helpful.

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