Nordstrom 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. It adds valuable context by specifying the authentication requirement, which is not obvious from the tool name or schema. It also implies a read-only operation ('View'), though it could be more explicit about safety traits like non-destructive behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause and adds essential context (authentication) in a second, concise sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete, covering purpose and authentication. However, it could enhance completeness by briefly mentioning the return format (e.g., structured data vs. text) or error handling, though this is not critical for a basic read operation.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and constraints, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('View') and resource ('current Nordstrom shopping bag contents, subtotal, and estimated total'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_orders' or 'get_wishlist' that access different data. It precisely defines what the tool retrieves without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states 'Requires authentication,' providing clear context for when to use this tool (i.e., only when authenticated). However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives, such as clarifying that it shows the current bag vs. historical orders from 'get_orders'.

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