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. The description only states 'Get a single service' without any information about what this operation does beyond the basic retrieval implication. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, response format, whether it's idempotent, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a tool with zero 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?

The description is extremely concise at just three words: 'Get a single service'. While this represents severe under-specification, from a pure conciseness perspective it's maximally efficient with zero wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, though there's no additional structure since it's only one phrase.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for its single parameter, the description is completely inadequate. For a retrieval tool that presumably returns data about a service entity, the description should explain what constitutes a 'service' in this system, what information is returned, how errors are handled, and provide context about the required parameter. The current description fails to provide any of this 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'service_id' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - it doesn't mention that a service_id is required, what format it should be in, where to find valid service IDs, or what happens if an invalid ID is provided. With one undocumented parameter and no compensating information in the description, this represents a significant 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 'Get a single service' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'getService' with minor wording variation. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'service' but lacks any distinguishing details about what a 'service' represents in this context or how this differs from other get operations like 'getCategory' or 'getUser'. While it's clear this is a retrieval operation, it doesn't provide meaningful differentiation from sibling 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. There are multiple sibling tools that could be relevant for service-related operations (e.g., 'listServices', 'createService', 'updateService', 'deleteService'), but the description offers no context about when this specific retrieval tool is appropriate versus listing services or other operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison points are mentioned.

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