aesthetics-wiki-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read), idempotentHint=true (repeatable), and openWorldHint=true (dynamic data). The description adds value by specifying the search scope ('pages matching a query') and return format details (dict with results list structure), which are not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the purpose statement, parameter explanations with examples, and return format details. There is no wasted text, and the structure enhances readability.

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 (2 parameters, simple search), rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the presence of an output schema (implied by Returns section), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately without needing to explain annotations or output schema details, making it sufficient for the context.

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 compensate. It effectively adds meaning: it explains 'query' as free-text search with examples ('cottagecore', 'dark academia', 'y2k') and 'limit' as max results with range (1-50) and default (10), which are not in the schema. This covers both parameters well, but lacks details on query syntax or error handling, preventing a perfect 5.

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 specific action ('Search'), target resource ('the Aesthetics Wiki for pages'), and scope ('matching a query'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_aesthetic (likely retrieves a specific page), get_aesthetic_images (likely fetches images), list_related (likely lists related pages), and random_aesthetic (likely returns a random page). The verb+resource+scope combination is precise and differentiated.

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 implies usage context (searching for pages based on a query) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_aesthetic (for specific pages) or random_aesthetic (for random selection). It provides clear parameter guidance (e.g., query examples, limit range) but lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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