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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it declares that no credential is needed (an auth requirement) and describes what the response contains (an authentication block naming credential tools). It stops short of describing cost or side effects, though for a zero-param info tool there is little else to disclose.

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?

Two short sentences, the key fact (no credential) bolded and front-loaded before the diagnostic use case. Minor awkwardness in the fragment-style first sentence, but no waste.

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 parameterless read-only info tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers auth needs and the shape of the useful return. Only the sibling disambiguation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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?

States a specific content set: server identity, MCP revision, and credential acquisition, so the agent knows what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like zeno_overview, onboarding_guide, or whoami, which is the main gap.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: call it first after a tool has refused you, and it will name the tools that can establish a connection. Clear context, but no explicit when-not or comparison against the overview/onboarding siblings.

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