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. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and return type, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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. Both sentences are relevant, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it efficient for a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers what the tool does and returns, but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output structure, making it incomplete for full agent understanding without additional signals.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it implies no filtering or scoping parameters, aligning with the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'List shipping services' specifies the verb and resource, and 'Returns available shipping services for the company' clarifies the scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_shipping' by focusing on listing rather than calculation, though it doesn't explicitly mention 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, context for listing services, or compare with other tools like 'list_products' or 'list_gateways' for similar listing operations, leaving usage unclear.

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