brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a service' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description provides no information about permissions required, side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens upon success. For a creation tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is completely 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?

While technically concise with only three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single phrase 'Create a service' fails to provide necessary context and doesn't front-load critical information. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide enough value to justify their inclusion.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'service' is in this context, what the creation entails, what parameters are needed, or what the result will be. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation, this description fails to provide necessary context.

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?

With only 13% schema description coverage (only 'profession_id' has a description), the description must compensate but provides zero parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'name', 'desc', 'filename', 'keywords', 'sort_order', 'lead_price', or 'master_id' mean or how they should be used. This leaves 7 of 8 parameters completely undocumented.

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 service' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it indicates a creation action, it doesn't specify what type of service is being created, what domain this operates in, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'createUserService' or 'createCategory'. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks differentiation.

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?

There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or relationships to sibling tools like 'createCategory' or 'createUserService'. Without any usage instructions, an agent would struggle to determine when this tool is appropriate.

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