Digikala MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the tool's purpose ('explore similar alternatives') and use case. Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and reliability (idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description doesn't add behavioral details like rate limits or auth needs, but provides useful application context.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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's moderate complexity, comprehensive annotations (covering safety and reliability), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, which is sufficient since annotations handle behavioral traits and schemas handle inputs/outputs.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (product_id and offset). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('similar products and related category recommendations'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique use case ('when a product is close but not exactly what you need, to explore similar alternatives'). This differentiates it from tools like get_product_details (single product info) and search_products (general search).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when a product is close but not exactly what you need, to explore similar alternatives'), providing clear context for its application. While it doesn't name specific alternatives, it implicitly distinguishes from search_products (for general searches) and get_product_details (for single product info).

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