Rebillia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support, which is useful context beyond the basic read operation implied by 'List'. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (e.g., structure of returned invoices).

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: one stating the core purpose and endpoint, another adding pagination details. It's front-loaded with the essential information and avoids unnecessary words. The HTTP method inclusion (GET) is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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 read-only tool with full parameter documentation in the schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output information (no output schema provided), doesn't explain response format or error handling, and offers no usage context relative to siblings. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in providing a complete operational picture.

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 fully documents all three parameters (customerId, pageNo, itemPerPage). The description adds minimal value by mentioning pagination parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics 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 specific action ('List unpaid invoices') and target resource ('for a customer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_customer_invoices' or 'list_invoices' by specifying the unpaid status. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 'get_customer_invoices' or 'list_invoices', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no contextual advice for selection among similar-looking sibling tools in the extensive list.

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