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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns specific data (status, carrier, etc.), requires authentication, and implies it's a read-only operation (tracking, not modifying). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 sentence, followed by return details and authentication requirement in the second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies the action, input, return data, and authentication need. It could improve by detailing output format or error cases, but it covers the essentials given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'order_number' fully documented in the schema as 'Nordstrom order number'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('track'), the resource ('Nordstrom shipment'), and the key identifier ('by order number'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_orders' or 'check_inventory' by focusing on shipment tracking rather than order retrieval or inventory checks.

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 when tracking a shipment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_orders' (which might list orders without tracking details) or provide exclusions. It mentions authentication as a prerequisite, offering some context.

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