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 indicates what data is returned ('contents and total'), compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it omits explicit confirmation that this is a safe read-only operation or any rate limit considerations.

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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the action verb and immediately specifies the return value scope ('contents and total'), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, simple read operation) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by specifying the return payload ('contents and total'). It could be improved by mentioning the data format or whether the cart might be empty, but it meets the minimum requirements for this tool type.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter context since the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage with no properties to document.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current contents and total of the Frisco cart.' It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_products (catalog search) and get_product_info (product metadata) by focusing on the cart state specifically.

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?

While there are no explicit when-to-use instructions, the verb 'Returns' combined with sibling tools using distinct action verbs (add_items_to_cart, remove_item_from_cart) provides clear implied usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over finish_session or clear_session.

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