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 mentions the HTTP endpoint but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or response format. The description is functional but lacks transparency about how the tool behaves in practice, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence clearly states the tool's function. The additional endpoint and reference details are somewhat redundant with the schema but not excessive. It could be slightly tighter by omitting the repetitive URI reference, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what a rate plan is, what data is returned, or error scenarios. For a read operation in a billing context, more context on permissions, data structure, or common use cases would help an AI agent use it correctly.

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 both parameters ('ratePlanId' and 'include') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of 'include' values or ID format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a rate plan by ID' specifies the verb (get) and resource (rate plan). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_product_rate_plans' by focusing on retrieval by ID rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_product_rate_plan_charge' or 'get_subscription_rate_plan', which are similar get-by-ID operations for related resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to choose this over 'list_product_rate_plans' for browsing or 'get_product' for broader product info. It also lacks prerequisites like authentication or rate plan existence. The HTTP method hint (GET) is minimal context but not actionable usage advice.

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