brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, whether results are paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. The two-word description fails to provide any behavioral context for a search operation with 6 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 at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. While front-loaded (there's only one phrase), it fails to provide necessary information that would justify its minimal length.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, authentication requirements, error conditions, or relationship to other post-related tools. This leaves critical gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool.

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 only 17% (1 of 6 parameters has a description), so the description must compensate but provides zero parameter information. The description doesn't explain what 'q' searches for, what categories are available, what data_id represents, or how pagination works. While one parameter has a schema description, the overall parameter understanding remains severely lacking.

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 'Search posts' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'posts', but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'listPosts' or 'getPost'. This provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'listPosts', 'getPost', and 'searchUsers' available, there's no indication of when search functionality is appropriate versus listing or retrieving specific posts. This leaves the agent with no contextual usage information.

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