rakuten-mcp

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 the requirement for coordinates or hotel number, which is useful, but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key requirement. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with the location requirement, with no wasted words 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are ordered, error handling, or the relationship between coordinate-based vs hotelNo-based searches. For a complex search tool without structured output documentation, more behavioral context is needed.

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 all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning location, date, and price parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like parameter relationships (coordinates vs hotelNo as alternatives) or search behavior details.

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 searches for available hotel rooms on Rakuten Travel by location, date, and price. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'hotel rooms', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_travel' tool, which appears to be a similar search function.

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 some usage context by stating it requires coordinates or a hotel number for location, which implies when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide clear alternatives to sibling tools like 'search_travel', leaving the relationship ambiguous.

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