Nordstrom MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions the return format but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding operational constraints.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, input scope, and output format without redundancy. Every element (search dimensions, return content) serves a clear purpose, making it front-loaded and zero-waste.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core functionality but misses behavioral context (e.g., pagination, errors) and usage differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on operational aspects would improve completeness.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by listing the search dimensions (keyword, category, brand) but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or interaction rules beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search Nordstrom merchandise') and resources ('products'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_product' (singular retrieval) or inventory/order tools. It specifies the search dimensions (keyword, category, brand) and the return content (list with pricing, availability, URLs).

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 implies usage for searching products broadly, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_product' (for specific product lookup) or 'check_inventory' (for stock queries). It mentions search dimensions but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., if it requires authentication).

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