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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions pagination ('Optional: pageNo, itemPerPage') but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds parameter context without unnecessary elaboration. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint ('GET /customers/{customerId}/addressbooks') is somewhat redundant since MCP tools abstract this detail.

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 list operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output contains (address fields, format), how pagination works with defaults, error handling, or relationship to other customer tools. The lack of annotations exacerbates these gaps.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning pagination parameters are optional, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how these parameters affect the listing behavior.

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 ('address book entries for a customer'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_customer_address' (singular) or 'list_customers', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'get_customer_address' (for a single address) or 'list_customers' (for customer overviews). It mentions pagination parameters but doesn't explain usage context or prerequisites.

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