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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly labels itself as informational rather than legal advice and says it includes disclaimers ('what it never claims'), which is useful context for safe use. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but the read-only nature is reasonably inferred.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary purpose and then add a meaningful boundary statement. No wasted words; the em-dash construction is clear.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and adds a critical usage caveat. It is adequate, though it doesn't specify the exact shape or list of checks returned.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly focuses on output rather than 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a concrete resource ('structural checks this server performs'), plus explicitly notes what it never claims. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_legal_text, which perform analysis rather than list server capabilities.

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 implies the tool is for understanding the server's internal checks and includes a strong caveat ('Information, not legal advice'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings such as get_descriptor or get_health. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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