brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the subscription_id doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'membership plan' contains, how it relates to the subscription_id, what format the return value takes, or any error scenarios. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic inference.

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, but it provides no parameter information. The single parameter 'subscription_id' is undocumented in both schema and description. However, with only one parameter and a straightforward 'get' operation, the baseline is 3 since the agent can reasonably infer this identifies which membership plan to retrieve.

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 membership plan' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('membership plan'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'listMembershipPlans' or 'getUserSubscriptions'. It specifies 'single' which helps differentiate from list operations, but lacks detail about what constitutes a 'membership plan' in this context.

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 like 'listMembershipPlans' or 'getUserSubscriptions'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. 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.