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 endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. The second part provides the HTTP endpoint, which is useful for context without being redundant. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 complexity of a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, return values, or how to interpret results. For a tool that fetches specific data, more context is needed to use it 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 schema fully documents both parameters ('chargeId' and 'include'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage notes for the 'include' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 action ('Get') and resource ('rate plan charge by ID'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_product_rate_plan_charges' by specifying retrieval of a single item via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_subscription_rate_plan_charge', which might fetch similar data in a different context, leaving slight ambiguity.

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. For instance, it doesn't mention using 'list_product_rate_plan_charges' for multiple charges or 'get_subscription_rate_plan_charge' for subscription-specific charges. The description only states the basic function without context or exclusions.

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