mcp-southwest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking account details but does not describe authentication behavior (e.g., how username/password are used, fallback to env vars), rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with authentication parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place by specifying what is checked (balance, tier status, progress), making it highly concise 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?

Given the complexity (authentication parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication behavior, response format, error cases, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that interacts with user accounts, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (username and password) with details on env var fallbacks. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining why these parameters are needed or their impact on the check. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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: checking Rapid Rewards account balance, tier status, and Companion Pass progress. It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('Rapid Rewards account'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_reservation' or 'get_boarding_pass', which might also involve account access. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_reservation' that might overlap in account-related queries. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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