Rebillia MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and optional includes, but doesn't describe error conditions (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second details the optional include feature. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary words. However, the inclusion of the HTTP endpoint ('GET /customers/{customerId}') adds minor redundancy without significant explanatory value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter hints, but lacks details on error handling, response structure, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('id' and 'include') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional include supports, but this is largely redundant with the schema's description of 'include'. No additional syntax, format details, or examples are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific customer by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'list_customers' by specifying retrieval of a single customer rather than a list. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other customer-related get tools like 'get_customer_address' or 'get_customer_invoices'.

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 implies usage when you need to retrieve a specific customer by ID, which is clear from the context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_customers' for multiple customers or other customer-specific get tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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