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 states this is a creation operation (POST) which implies mutation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that states the action, endpoint, and parameter categories. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the core purpose more prominently before listing parameters.

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 creation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a rate plan is in this system, how it relates to products, what happens after creation, or what the response contains. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.

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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing some required/optional parameters and providing the type enum values, but doesn't explain parameter relationships or business logic beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Create a rate plan') and resource ('rate plan'), and mentions the HTTP method POST with endpoint. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_product_rate_plan_charge' or 'update_product_rate_plan', but the verb 'create' is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 like 'update_product_rate_plan' or 'create_product_rate_plan_charge'. It mentions required and optional parameters but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or relationships with other tools in the system.

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