Rebillia MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals this is a GET operation and mentions that invalid dates are ignored, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior (beyond listing parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes a parameter dump with examples. While the examples are helpful, the listing of all optional parameters duplicates schema information. The structure could be more focused on high-level guidance rather than enumerating what's already documented elsewhere.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides reasonable context about filtering capabilities and includes helpful examples. However, it lacks information about response format, pagination behavior, and error handling. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by grouping parameters and providing concrete examples with specific values, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 ('subscriptions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_subscription' (singular) or 'get_customer_subscriptions', which might be important context for an agent.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_customer_subscriptions' and 'get_subscription', there's no indication of when this general list tool is preferred over more specific ones, or what prerequisites might exist.

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