Aldi MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions search functionality but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., list of products with basic info), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), any rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and search methods without redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward search tool.

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 (search with three parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., product list with names, prices, IDs), how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., only current products). For a search tool without structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about results.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the search methods ('keyword, category, or dietary filter'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search for products') and resource ('Aldi grocery catalog'), with specific search methods ('by keyword, category, or dietary filter'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_product_availability' or 'get_product_details' by focusing on search rather than availability checks or detailed lookups. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_weekly_specials' which might also involve product listings.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'search_products' over 'get_weekly_specials' for finding discounted items, or when to use 'check_product_availability' after searching. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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