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. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. It lacks details on how the listing works beyond the basic action.

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 with a single phrase 'List membership plans', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, filtering logic, or return format, leaving gaps for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output information. More context is needed for effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add context.

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 membership plans' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('membership plans'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getMembershipPlan' (singular vs. plural) or explain what distinguishes listing from getting. The purpose is stated but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'getMembershipPlan' for single records or filtering capabilities, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for listing versus other operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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