Frisco MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully documents the mutation semantics (append vs. replace via clearing) and hints at the internal search logic. However, it omits crucial operational details such as failure handling (partial vs. total failure), atomicity guarantees, authentication requirements, or return value structure.

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 consists of two efficient, front-loaded sentences where every word earns its place. The first establishes the core operation and the second immediately clarifies default behavior and options, with no redundant or filler text.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the input contract. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it falls short of completeness by failing to describe return values, error conditions, or side effects that an agent would need to handle the tool invocation properly.

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%, with the items parameter's JSON structure and the clearCartFirst boolean both well-documented in the schema. The description references the 'list of products' and 'clearing' behavior which map to parameters, but adds no additional syntax guidance or format details beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 uses specific verbs ('Searches for and adds') and clearly identifies the resource (cart). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_products (which likely only returns results) by stating it performs both search and add operations, and implicitly contrasts with remove_item_from_cart and view_cart through its additive action.

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 implicit usage guidance by explaining the default append behavior and the clearCartFirst option, which helps users decide when to set that flag. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools—for example, when to use search_products alone versus this tool, or prerequisites like requiring login.

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