Rebillia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the paginated return format and example log types, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies safe).

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose and endpoint, second describes return format with helpful examples. Zero wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 operation with 100% schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and return format. However, it lacks behavioral details like authentication, error handling, or pagination structure that would be helpful given no structured output definition.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score.

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 resource 'activity history for a subscription', specifying the exact scope of logs (status changes, renewals, payments). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_subscription' (general info) and 'get_customer_logs' (different entity).

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 needing subscription activity history, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_customer_logs' or 'get_subscription_invoices'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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