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 for behavioral disclosure. 'List leads' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify pagination behavior (though the schema hints at it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'lead' in this system. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 with just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring framework, 'Process' scored 2 for conciseness due to under-specification, whereas here the two-word description is appropriately brief for what it attempts to convey, with zero wasted words.

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 list tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'leads' are, how results are structured, whether there are default filters, or how pagination works (beyond what's implied in the schema). The agent would need to infer much from the schema alone, which isn't the description's job.

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 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to 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 leads' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like listUsers or listPosts, nor does it clarify what 'leads' are in this context. While the verb 'List' is clear, the resource 'leads' lacks context, making this minimally informative.

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 sibling tools like getLead (for single lead retrieval) and searchUsers (which might overlap with lead functionality), there's no indication of when listLeads is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools should be preferred instead.

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