Rebillia MCP Server

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. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (rates, comparisons, errors), whether it has side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is functionally minimal 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 reasonably concise but includes redundant information. Listing the HTTP endpoint (POST /shipping/calculate) adds minimal value for an AI agent. The parameter listing duplicates schema information without adding context. The structure could be more front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance.

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 calculation tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the calculation returns (rate quotes, comparisons, carrier options), error handling, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would need to guess about the tool's output and behavior.

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 already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly. The description lists required vs. optional parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Calculate shipping rates' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are mostly about subscriptions, customers, and billing) by focusing on shipping calculations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential shipping-related siblings beyond the general context.

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 any prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual triggers. While sibling tools don't appear to have overlapping shipping calculation functionality, the description offers no explicit usage context or exclusions.

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