Aldi 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 only states what the tool does without detailing traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. It mentions search parameters but doesn't explain what happens if no stores are found or how results are structured, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and search criteria, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations, which are needed for the agent to operate effectively. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations and output schema.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. It implies location-based filtering but doesn't provide additional context on parameter interactions or usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Find'), resource ('Aldi store locations'), and scope ('near a given address, city, or zip code'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_store_hours' or 'search_products' by focusing on location-based search rather than store details or product information.

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, such as 'get_store_hours' for operational details or 'check_product_availability' for inventory queries. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.

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