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 mentions 'optional query parameters for filtering and pagination' and includes a GET endpoint, but fails to describe key behaviors like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, consisting of two sentences without unnecessary elaboration. However, the second sentence referencing an external API guide adds some redundancy and could be integrated more seamlessly, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response structure, error conditions, and usage context relative to siblings. The external API link does not compensate for missing on-tool information, leaving the agent under-informed for proper invocation.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional query parameters for filtering and pagination' but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already specifies, such as parameter interactions or default behaviors not covered in schema descriptions.

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 ('customers'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_customer' (singular retrieval) or 'list_customer_addresses' (related resource), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 'get_customer' for single customer details or other list tools for different resources. It mentions optional filtering and pagination but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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