wanderlog-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 effectively describes key behaviors: results are geographically biased toward the trip's location (not global), it returns candidate results with names and short descriptions, and it supports two response formats with different outputs. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with four focused sentences that each add value: first states purpose, second explains usage context, third clarifies geographic scope, and fourth provides workflow guidance. There's no redundant information, and key points are front-loaded appropriately.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, geographic behavior, and format differences. The main gap is the lack of output details (what exactly is returned beyond 'names and short descriptions'), but given the schema coverage and clear behavioral context, this is a minor limitation.

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 parameters well. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that results are 'geographically biased toward the trip's destination' (enhancing trip_key understanding), providing query examples like 'sushi restaurant', and clarifying the purpose difference between 'concise' and 'detailed' formats beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 real-world places near a Wanderlog trip destination, specifying the resource (places) and action (search). It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like wanderlog_add_place by focusing on search rather than addition, and mentions specific place types (restaurants, attractions, hotels, parks, landmarks).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for resolving user requests like 'find a good coffee shop' into place candidates, and for preparing to add places to a trip. It distinguishes usage between 'concise' format for presenting options and 'detailed' format for obtaining place_ids for downstream actions, offering clear alternatives within the tool itself.

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