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 nothing about pagination behavior (implied by limit/page parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. 'List' implies a read operation, but without annotations confirming readOnlyHint, the description doesn't explicitly state this is a safe read operation.

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 at just 3 words, which is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. However, the parenthetical '(sub-categories)' feels tacked on and doesn't clearly enhance understanding, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the filtering/sorting capabilities, pagination behavior, or what constitutes a 'service' in this context. The agent would need to infer too much from parameter names alone.

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 all 7 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to guidelines, 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 services (sub-categories)' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('services'), but it's vague about what 'services' are and the parenthetical '(sub-categories)' adds confusion rather than clarity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools like listCategories or listUsers, which have similar naming patterns.

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. With siblings like getService (singular retrieval) and createService/updateService/deleteService (CRUD operations), the description doesn't explain that this is for bulk listing with filtering/sorting capabilities versus those other tools.

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