Nordstrom 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. While it states the tool checks availability, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., list of stores with stock status), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interpret results.

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 element ('Check product availability', 'at Nordstrom stores', 'near a given ZIP code', 'for a specific size') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of an inventory check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., what data structure or format to expect), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like whether it checks real-time stock or cached data. For a tool that likely returns structured store/availability data, this is a significant gap.

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 (product_id, size, zip) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond implying that 'size' and 'zip' are required for the inventory check, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 specific action ('Check product availability'), resource ('at Nordstrom stores'), and scope ('near a given ZIP code, for a specific size'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product (general product info) or search_products (product search) by focusing on localized inventory checking.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid product ID), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like get_product (which might provide product details without inventory) or track_order (which tracks shipments rather than store availability).

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