PetSmart 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. It describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 purpose and lists key data elements. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context, but it's still highly concise.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format, errors, or dependencies. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to fully guide an agent, but it's minimally adequate.

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 parameter 'product_url' documented as 'Full URL of the PetSmart product page'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description input.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific PetSmart product', listing specific data elements like description, ingredients, reviews, variants, and availability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_products' by focusing on a single product rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'add_to_cart' is for actions, not retrieval).

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 detailed product information is needed for a specific product, as opposed to 'search_products' for broader queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_to_cart' (which might require product details first) or prerequisites such as having a product URL. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.

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