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. While 'Get a product by ID' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., what happens if productId doesn't exist), response format, or pagination. The HTTP method hint 'GET /products/{productId}' adds some context but doesn't fully describe 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 extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a technical hint about the HTTP endpoint and optional parameter. There's no wasted language, though some might argue it's too brief given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'product' contains, what format the response takes, error handling, or authentication requirements. Given the rich sibling tool ecosystem with many product-related operations, more context about this specific retrieval operation would be helpful.

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 mentions 'Optional: include' which adds minimal value beyond what the schema already states about the optional 'include' parameter. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 states 'Get a product by ID' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation on a product resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other product-related tools like 'list_products', 'create_product', or 'update_product' in the sibling list. The description is functional but lacks differentiation from alternatives.

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. With siblings like 'list_products' (for multiple products), 'get_external_product' (for external products), and 'update_product' (for modifications), there's no indication of when this specific retrieval by ID is appropriate versus other product access methods.

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