Rebillia MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'GET' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if IDs are invalid. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second provides the HTTP method and path pattern. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured without unnecessary details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. For a simple read operation with full schema coverage, it's adequate but lacks context on return values, errors, or integration details that would help an agent use it more 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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Get' and the resource 'a single address book entry by ID', specifying it retrieves one entry rather than a list. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_customer_addresses' which would return multiple entries, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 a specific address entry by ID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_customer_addresses' for browsing or 'get_customer' for customer info. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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