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. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, what happens if the match_id doesn't exist, whether it returns full or partial data, or any rate limits. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

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 - a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.

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 tool's apparent simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'lead match' is (versus a regular 'lead'), doesn't provide context about the match_id parameter, and offers no behavioral details. For a tool that likely retrieves specific database records, more context about the resource and its identifier would be helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. The description mentions 'a single lead match' which implies a match_id parameter is needed, but doesn't explain what a match_id is, where to find it, or its format. With 1 required parameter that's completely undocumented in the schema, the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 lead match' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('lead match'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'getLead' or 'listLeadMatches' - it's unclear what makes a 'lead match' different from a 'lead' or why you'd retrieve one vs. many. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from related tools.

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. With siblings like 'getLead', 'listLeadMatches', and 'matchLead', there's no indication of when you'd retrieve a single lead match versus other lead-related operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.

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