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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values ('Returns titles, authors, formats, and availability links'), which adds some context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, and another describing the return values. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage guidelines).

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 moderate complexity (search with three parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return values, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., rate limits), and doesn't compensate for the missing output schema by fully explaining the response format. It's adequate as a minimum but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (query, maxResults, searchIndex) with descriptions, constraints, and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax or format details). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Search the library catalog for books, DVDs, audiobooks, and other materials.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('library catalog'), and lists the types of materials covered. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'check_availability' (which might check availability of specific items rather than searching the catalog), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'check_availability' or explain how they differ (e.g., search vs. specific item lookup). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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