Submit a question to the usedevice site about pricing, security, emulators, or MCP and get the sections that answer it; this reads information only and does not make a reservation.
Ask the usedevice site a question (pricing, security, emulators, MCP, who is behind it, ...). Returns the sections that answer it. Reading, not a reservation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | The question, in a few words |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a fair job: it discloses the return behavior ('Returns the sections that answer it') and declares the operation read-only ('Reading, not a reservation'). It says nothing about auth, rate limits, or freshness of the site content, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return/read clarification. Every phrase earns its place, including the example topics.
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 single-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, scope, return shape, and read semantics. The only real gap is any hint about reliability or freshness of answers, which is minor here.
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?
There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'question' including its length bounds. The description's topic list gives context about what to ask but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Ask ... a question') and resource ('the usedevice site'), plus a parenthetical topic list that pins down the domain. It clarifies the operation is Q&A/retrieval, but never names the siblings (list_devices, reserve_device, status) to differentiate itself explicitly.
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 sets clear context (asking about pricing, security, emulators, MCP, ownership) and states an exclusion — 'Reading, not a reservation' — which steers away from reserve_device. It does not, however, name the alternative a user should pick when they do want to reserve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.