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 but only states it's a GET operation. It doesn't disclose whether this is paginated (implied by itemPerPage/pageNo but not explicitly stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the returned data has. The HTTP method is mentioned but no other behavioral context.

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 but front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the parameter list is presented as a run-on sentence without clear structure, making it less readable. It could be more efficiently organized.

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/read tool with 11 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or typical use cases. The parameter listing doesn't compensate for missing behavioral 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 11 parameters thoroughly. The description lists parameter names but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (enum values for status/type are already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states 'List transactions' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction' (singular) or other list tools. It doesn't specify scope or context beyond the basic action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_transaction' (singular) or other filtering/list tools. The description mentions optional parameters but doesn't provide context about when specific filters are appropriate or what the default behavior is.

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