curation_view_data

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a return-only tool. Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: results are paginated ('ページ単位') and the tool is restricted to the MCP Apps viewer context. It doesn't describe the shape of the returned spots or paging limits.

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?

Three short sentences, no waste. The viewer-only restriction is front-loaded before the functional description, so the most important constraint is seen first.

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 viewer-facing data feed with two simple parameters, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers role, exclusion, and pagination. The one remaining gap is what a spot record contains and any page-size limits, which is minor given the tool isn't meant for LLM invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'ページ単位で返す' conveys the meaning of the page parameter, but review_id is only implied by '保存済みレビュー' with no format or scoping detail. Partial compensation, so it is only adequate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns ('返す') saved review spots ('保存済みレビューのスポット') page by page. It clearly frames the tool as the data provider for the MCP Apps viewer. It stops short of naming a sibling, but the viewer-only framing already does the differentiating work.

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?

It states an explicit exclusion: viewer-only, and 'LLM は呼ばない' (the LLM must not call this). That is a clear, actionable negative guideline far beyond what most definitions offer. It doesn't say what an agent should call instead for review data, which keeps it from a 5.

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