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 album groups' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes. While the input schema hints at pagination through 'limit' and 'page' parameters, the description itself provides no behavioral context 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 maximally concise with just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework it earns full points for having zero wasted words and being front-loaded with the core action. Every word technically earns its place, even if more content would be beneficial.

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 two-word description is insufficient. The agent needs more context about what 'album groups' represent, how the listing differs from search functionality, what the output structure looks like, and any authentication requirements. The description fails to provide the necessary completeness for effective tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear documentation for all 7 parameters, so the baseline score is 3. The description 'List album groups' adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain how filtering parameters work together or provide examples of typical usage patterns.

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 album groups' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'listPortfolioGroups' without adding meaningful specificity. While it indicates a listing operation on 'album groups' (which appears to be synonymous with portfolio groups), it lacks the verb+resource clarity needed to distinguish it from similar tools like 'searchPortfolioGroups' or 'getPortfolioGroup'.

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 'searchPortfolioGroups' and 'getPortfolioGroup' available, there's no indication of whether this is for comprehensive listing, filtered searches, or specific retrieval. The absence of any contextual guidance leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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