brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it supports pagination (though the schema suggests it does), rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a list operation with 7 parameters, this is critically insufficient.

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?

While extremely concise at just two words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary context that would help an agent understand and use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing adequate guidance.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'lead matches' are, when to use this tool, what the response contains, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on this description.

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 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>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 'List lead matches' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what 'lead matches' are, what resource is being listed, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'getLeadMatch' or 'listLeads'. While the verb 'List' is clear, the object 'lead matches' lacks definition.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from similar tools like 'getLeadMatch' (singular) or 'listLeads'. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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