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. It mentions pagination and filtering capabilities, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that conveys the core purpose. The parenthetical 'list_seo' adds some context without being verbose. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical information about the tool's primary use case.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'page' represents in this context, what data is returned, how pagination works in practice, or any constraints on usage. The description should provide more context about the resource being listed and typical response structure.

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 already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions pagination and filtering generally, but doesn't provide additional context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('pages'), specifies it's paginated, and indicates the scope ('all pages on the site'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'list_seo' in parentheses, though this could be more explicit. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other list tools like listPosts or listCategories beyond the resource type.

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 when to use listPages versus getPage (for single page retrieval) or searchPosts (which might overlap with page content). There's no context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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