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. 'Get a single data type' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the data_id doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a single data type'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb, quantity, and resource.

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 (a read operation with one required parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'data type' is in this context, what information is returned, or any error conditions. For a tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (data_id is described as 'Data type primary key'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Get a single data type' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('data type'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get' tools in the sibling list (like getCategory, getUser, etc.) beyond specifying the resource type. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what distinguishes data types from other entities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use getDataType versus listDataTypes (a sibling tool), nor any prerequisites or context for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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