mcp-publix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is returned (name, price, aisle location) but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or how results are structured/limited. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second specifies what information is returned. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers what the tool does and what data it returns, but lacks behavioral details that would be important for proper usage. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more operational guidance.

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 single 'query' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Search for products') and resource ('products available at Publix grocery stores'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'store_finder' or 'weekly_deals' beyond the different resource focus, 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'store_finder' or 'weekly_deals'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or specific contexts where this search tool is preferred over other available tools.

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