Retrieve customer reviews for a food vendor using coordinates and vendor code to assess ratings and feedback before ordering.
Vendor reviews
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | ||
| code | No | ||
| long | No | ||
| token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: no read/write nature, no auth requirements (a token parameter is present but unexplained), no pagination or rate-limit behavior.
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?
Two words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded verb or scope to anchor the agent.
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?
A four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation leaves the agent with essentially nothing to call it correctly.
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?
Four parameters (lat, code, long, token) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them — not even which identifier code is or that token is an auth credential.
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?
"Vendor reviews" restates the tool name rather than stating an action. It never says whether this lists, fetches, or aggregates reviews, and it is indistinguishable from the sibling food_review_submit without opening the schema.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus food_reviews' siblings such as food_review_submit, food_vendor, or food_detail. The agent is given no selection criteria at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.