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 mentions 'Requires authentication,' which is a useful behavioral trait, but it lacks other critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'View' but not explicit), rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key requirement. There's no wasted language, and it gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the authentication note more seamlessly, but it's still 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 moderate complexity (retrieving order history with one optional parameter) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and authentication need but lacks details on return format, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter documented as 'Max number of orders to return, default 10.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'limit' interacts with order history retrieval. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'View Nordstrom order history including order number, date, status, and items.' It specifies the verb ('View') and resource ('Nordstrom order history') with concrete details about what information is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'track_order' or 'get_product', which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'Requires authentication' indicates a prerequisite, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'track_order' (which might provide real-time status updates) or 'search_products' (for product details). There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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