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 'POST /companies/filters', implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it affects existing filters), rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core action but includes a trailing ellipsis in the 'section' list, which is inefficient and incomplete. Sentences are somewhat cluttered with parameter details that overlap with the schema, reducing overall clarity and conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), response format, and error scenarios. Given the complexity of creating a filter with rules, more context is needed to adequately guide the agent.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing required and optional fields and providing a partial enum for 'section' (e.g., 'billRuns, companyInbox'), but this is redundant with the schema's 'One of: subscriptions, invoices, customers, products, orders, etc.' Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'company filter', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_filters' or 'remove_filter', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 like 'list_filters' or 'remove_filter'. The description mentions required and optional parameters but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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