mcp-drizly

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., boolean availability, store list with stock levels). The description states the action but misses key operational context.

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 action ('Check if a product is available for delivery') and adds secondary detail ('and see which stores carry it'). It has zero waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity (e.g., separating delivery vs. store aspects).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex availability data. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., availability status, store list, delivery options), error handling, or dependencies. For a 2-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 ('productId' and 'address'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are used for availability and delivery checks, matching the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 specific action ('Check if a product is available for delivery') and resource ('product'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_product_details' (which retrieves info) or 'place_order' (which initiates purchase). It explicitly mentions both delivery availability and store inventory, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 like 'get_stores' (which might list stores without product checks) or 'search_products' (which might find products without availability info). It implies usage for availability checking but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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