Coffee Company MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a query operation ('查询'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm if it's safe or has side effects. It mentions an HTTP API endpoint (POST /equity/detail) but doesn't explain authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose and details retrieved, the second gives the HTTP API, and the third lists the parameter with a brief explanation. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded. The minor deduction is for the slightly redundant listing of the parameter in the description when it's already in the schema, though this adds semantic value.

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 an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and a simple input schema (one parameter), the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like error handling or dependencies. It's minimally viable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'order_id' by specifying it as '权益订单号' (equity order number), which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Order Id' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective. However, it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules, keeping it from a perfect 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '查询权益详情' (query equity details) and lists specific information it retrieves: '券码、状态、金额、核销次数等完整信息' (coupon codes, status, amount, redemption count, and other complete information). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'equity_query' by focusing on detailed information for a specific order rather than general querying. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'coupon_detail' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 'equity_query' or 'coupon_detail'. It mentions the required parameter 'order_id' but doesn't explain prerequisites, such as needing an existing equity order. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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