brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a lead match' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description reveals nothing about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, what the response looks like, or any side effects. For a creation tool with 17 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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 maximally concise at three words with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create') and object ('a lead match'). While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the structure itself is efficient with every word serving the minimal purpose.

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 complexity (17 parameters, 8 required), absence of annotations, no output schema, and extremely low schema description coverage (6%), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a lead match is, when to create one, what parameters mean, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects. This leaves the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 6% (just one parameter has a description), leaving 16 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description adds zero information about any parameters—it doesn't mention what 'lead_id', 'user_id', 'match_price', or any other fields represent or how they should be used. With such low schema coverage, the description fails completely to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 'Create a lead match' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it indicates the tool creates something (a lead match), it doesn't specify what a 'lead match' actually is or what this creation entails. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'createLead' or 'matchLead', leaving the purpose vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'createLead', 'matchLead', 'updateLeadMatch', and 'deleteLeadMatch' available, there's no indication of the specific context or prerequisites for creating a lead match versus other lead-related operations. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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