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 states 'Get a transaction by ID' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or what the response includes (e.g., transaction details). The HTTP method 'GET' is mentioned, but this adds minimal value without further context.

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 two short sentences: 'Get a transaction by ID. GET /transactions/{transactionId}.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the HTTP method, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 tool's complexity (simple read operation with 1 parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., transaction fields), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool in a context with many siblings, more guidance on usage and behavior would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'transactionId' documented as 'Transaction ID (required)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only repeats 'by ID' without explaining format, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and 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 transaction by ID' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction'), making it easy to understand. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_transactions' (which lists multiple) and 'refund_transaction'/'void_transaction' (which modify transactions). However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's for retrieving a single transaction, though this is implied.

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. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_transaction' versus 'list_transactions' (for multiple transactions) or other transaction-related tools like 'refund_transaction'. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid transaction ID, or exclusions.

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