Rezdy Agent MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to state whether this is a read-only operation, what data structure is returned, or error behaviors (e.g., what happens if the product has no pickup locations). The word 'Get' implies retrieval but lacks explicit safety guarantees or behavioral context.

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 a single 7-word sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb. However, it borders on under-specification—while efficient, it lacks the structural richness (scoping details, format hints) that would make it maximally useful without being verbose.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the existence of sibling `get_locations`, it lacks contextual completeness by not clarifying the relationship between pickup locations and general locations, and omits return value description since no output schema exists to compensate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('Product ID'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'for a specific product' which loosely maps to the productId parameter, but adds no additional semantic context like 'the numeric ID obtained from search_products' or format details beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and specific resource ('pickup locations'), and scopes it to 'a specific product' which distinguishes it from sibling tool `get_locations`. However, it uses the generic verb 'Get' rather than 'Retrieve' or 'List', and doesn't explicitly contrast with `get_product`.

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 like `get_locations` or `get_product`, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid product ID from `search_products` first). It implies usage by mentioning 'specific product' but offers no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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