Rebillia MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions optional filters but does not disclose key behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by brief details on filters. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly improved by structuring usage hints more clearly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like pagination, response format, error handling, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this leaves the agent with insufficient 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 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional filters for status and type, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. 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 verb ('List') and resource ('charges and credits for a customer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_transactions' or 'get_customer_invoices', which might list similar financial data, so it misses the highest 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, such as 'list_transactions' or 'get_customer_invoices', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the basic action without context.

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