Restaurant Booking MCP Server

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 states the tool checks availability but doesn't describe what 'availability' means (e.g., time slots, table types), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The 'mock implementation' note suggests limited real-world functionality but lacks specifics on behavior.

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. The 'mock implementation' note adds context without verbosity. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from implementation notes.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on return values (e.g., what availability data looks like) and behavioral context, which is needed given the absence of annotations. It meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how parameters interact or typical values). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 as 'Check availability for a restaurant reservation' with the specific verb 'check' and resource 'availability'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'make_reservation' (which books) and 'search_restaurants' (which finds restaurants), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_restaurant_details' which might provide related info.

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 like 'make_reservation' or 'search_restaurants'. It mentions 'mock implementation', which hints at testing contexts, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for effective tool selection.

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