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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond parameters), error conditions, or what the response contains. The HTTP method (GET) is mentioned but without context about what that means operationally.

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 reasonably concise but poorly structured. It front-loads the purpose but then dumps all parameters in a single run-on sentence without clear organization. While not verbose, the parameter listing would be more effective as bullet points or separate sentences for different parameter groups (filtering vs pagination vs sorting).

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 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'product' represents in this system, what fields are returned, how pagination works in practice, or authentication requirements. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context about the domain and API behavior.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description lists parameters but adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'Optional:' and provides some enum values, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('products'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other list_* tools on the server (like list_customers, list_invoices, etc.), which would require mentioning it's specifically for product catalog listing rather than other entity types.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions optional parameters for filtering/sorting, it doesn't indicate prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when to choose this over other product-related tools like get_product or list_product_rate_plans. The agent receives no usage boundaries.

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