Critical failures across all three tools. Tool definitions are inferred from dynamic generation code rather than explicitly registered with schemas. Descriptions are generic boilerplate about dynamic generation rather than specific, actionable guidance for LLM tool selection. No parameter descriptions exist (tools accept no parameters). No output schemas documented. No error handling guidance. The server generates tools at runtime from Schema.org markup, but the MCP tool registration itself lacks the rigor required for production agent use.

• Register tools explicitly with full JSON Schema input definitions. Even if tools are dynamically generated from Schema.org markup, the MCP server must expose concrete tool names, descriptions, and input/output schemas at registration time.
• Document output schemas for each tool. Specify what fields are returned, their types, and which fields are required for downstream tool chaining (e.g., if get_product returns product_id, ensure list_products also returns product_id for consistency).
• Replace generic descriptions with specific, actionable guidance. Instead of 'Dynamically generated read tools...', write: 'Retrieve a single [Entity Type] by ID. Returns [field list]. Use this after list_[entity] to fetch details.'
• Add parameter descriptions and constraints where applicable. Even if current tools accept no parameters, future tools should document expected input format, valid ranges, and enums.
• Implement error handling guidance. Document what errors each tool can return (not found, invalid ID, permission denied) and what the LLM should do next (retry, call search_*, ask user).