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 unsubscribe record' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the ID doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or the format of the returned record. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get') and resource, making it immediately understandable. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter's semantics, behavioral aspects like error handling, or what the returned record contains. While concise, it lacks the detail needed for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional 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?

The input schema has one parameter ('id' of type integer) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds no information about the parameter—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., a unsubscribe record ID) or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 unsubscribe record' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('unsubscribe record'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listUnsubscribes' (which presumably lists multiple records) or 'createUnsubscribe' (which creates new records), leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this specific 'get' operation versus alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an ID), contrast with 'listUnsubscribes' for multiple records, or specify use cases. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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