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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context by noting that passwords and secrets are redacted and connection states are translated to human language, though it does not cover auth requirements or rate limits.

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 with no wasted language. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently adds relevant behavioral detail.

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?

With zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It states what is read and notes redaction and connection-state translation, adding useful context without needing to explain return values.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on the resource and output behavior.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('No-API Server configuration/status'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as hgr_get_dashboard_getnoapiservers or hgr_get_noapi_solution_state, so it falls short of a 5.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is reading No-API Server configuration/status, leaving an agent to infer routing from sibling names.

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