recommend_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the BM25 retrieval mechanism, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a recommendation tool, it is likely safe, but this is not confirmed.

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 sentences with zero waste: first sentence states the purpose, second explains the methodology. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description explains the retrieval mechanism and purpose. Given that an output schema exists, it does not need to detail return values. It could mention the output format briefly, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a recommendation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces that the query is natural language. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: recommending MCP-Dubai tools for a natural-language query. It specifies the verb 'recommend' and the resource 'tools', and adds the algorithm used (BM25). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are domain-specific.

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 when the LLM needs to find the right tool without scanning the full catalogue. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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