brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (though hinted in schema), filtering capabilities, sorting options, or what format the results will be in. For a 7-parameter tool with complex filtering options, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 - a single 4-word phrase that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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, complex filtering capabilities (property, property_value, property_operator), pagination (limit, page), and sorting (order_column, order_type) - and with no annotations or output schema - the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the relationship between filtering parameters, pagination behavior, or what the output will contain, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 their types, descriptions, and constraints. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, 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 user metadata records' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('user metadata records'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'getUserMeta' or 'createUserMeta' - it only describes what it does, not how it differs from related operations.

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 siblings like 'getUserMeta' (singular retrieval) and 'createUserMeta' (creation), there's no indication whether this is for bulk listing, paginated results, or filtered queries. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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