Rebillia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. The mention of pagination parameters ('itemPerPage', 'pageNo') hints at pagination but doesn't explicitly state it. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the core purpose and endpoint, another listing optional parameters with brief examples. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more polished. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it appropriately concise for a listing tool.

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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain what a 'bill run' is, what data is returned, or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. While adequate for simple listing, it leaves the agent guessing about the full operational context.

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 six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by providing an example for 'include' ('e.g. invoice') and clarifying 'query' filters by status, but these details are already covered in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding significant semantic context.

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 ('List') and resource ('bill runs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_bill_run' (singular) and 'get_bill_run_invoices' (specific invoices), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to similar list tools like 'list_invoices' or 'list_transactions'. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over other listing operations.

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