brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List reviews' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the output format is (e.g., paginated list), or any rate limits. The description lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or performance characteristics, which are critical for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 just two words, 'List reviews', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified, but per the scoring guidelines, conciseness is scored based on efficiency, not adequacy. Every word earns its place, so it deserves a high score here.

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 explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, lacks usage guidelines, and omits behavioral context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall description fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively, especially compared to siblings like searchReviews.

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, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters (e.g., limit, page, property filters). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 reviews' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what kind of reviews (e.g., product reviews, performance reviews) or what scope is involved. While the name suggests a listing operation, the description fails to distinguish this tool from similar list operations in the sibling tools like listPosts or listUsers.

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 sibling tools like searchReviews (which appears in the list) that might serve similar purposes, nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent with no direction on tool selection.

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