mcp-server-peecai

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains that without date filters, it returns data across all dates, and clarifies that empty results may indicate no data for the given filters. This enhances understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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: it starts with the core purpose, adds context about usage and return values, and ends with practical notes on filters and empty results. Each sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy. A slight deduction is made because the last sentence about empty results could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the purpose, usage context, and behavioral notes like date handling and empty results. With annotations handling safety and idempotency, and the schema detailing parameters, the description fills in key gaps without needing to explain return values or repeat schema info. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning pagination or result format, but it's largely adequate.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any specific parameter details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it mentions date filters generally but doesn't explain the 'filters' array or 'limit'/'offset' usage). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic value.

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: 'Get shopping/product queries that AI models generated when answering prompts.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('shopping/product queries'), and mentions the return content ('product-related queries with associated product names'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_queries' or 'list_*' tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage context: 'Useful for understanding product recommendations by AI models' and notes about date filters and empty results. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_queries' or other sibling tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the usage somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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