Find Beli restaurant candidates by search term and city, returning business IDs and addresses so you can verify locations before bookmarking or adding to guides.
Search Beli for restaurants. Returns candidates with a business id and address. Check the address, since top hits can be in the wrong city.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Tokyo, Japan | |
| term | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the return shape (business id + address) and a genuine caveat that top hits may be in the wrong city. It omits auth requirements, result limits, and ranking behavior, which keeps it from a 5, but it is well above baseline for an annotated-free tool.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return value, then the pitfall to watch for. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.
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 simple two-parameter search with no output schema this is nearly sufficient, but the agent is left guessing what `term` accepts (name, cuisine, dish?) and unaware that city defaults to Tokyo. Those gaps matter for calling it correctly the first time.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not — neither `term` nor `city` is explained, and the schema's notable default of 'Tokyo, Japan' for city is never mentioned. The 'wrong city' note is only an oblique hint about the city parameter.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Search Beli for restaurants') and even names what comes back ('candidates with a `business` id and address'). The sibling tools are bookmark/guide/auth utilities, so this read search is unmistakable.
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?
Usage is only implied: you search to obtain a `business` id, and you should verify the address before acting. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.