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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the categories of information returned (server, runtime, instructions, capabilities), which substitutes partially for the missing output schema. It says nothing about caching, freshness, or any side effects, though for a zero-parameter read-only info tool the risk is low.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing exactly what is returned, with no filler or repetition. Nothing can be trimmed without losing content.

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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately previews the return areas so an agent knows what it will get. It could be more concrete about the exact fields or format, which is the only remaining gap.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. No parameter-level meaning is required or missing.

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 verb ('Returns') and enumerates the resource categories returned: server info, runtime environment, instructions, and knowledge capabilities. This is clearly distinct from siblings like ask, get-section, and get-investigation-links. It stops short of 5 only because 'knowledge capabilities' stays abstract.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus its siblings, nor any prerequisite or context. The usage is only implied by the tool's meta nature. It needs no exclusions given the distinct scope, but the total absence of routing guidance keeps it at 2.

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