Returns a simple Hello World greeting message
Returns a simple Hello World greeting message in Japanese
name (string, optional) — Name to include in greeting (optional)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name to include in greeting (optional) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful detail that the greeting is in Japanese, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits or return format. Given the annotations, this modest addition warrants a 3.
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 unnecessarily redundant: the opening sentence is repeated in the 'When to use' section, and the parameter section mirrors the schema. Each sentence does not earn its place, and the structure adds little to clarity. The content could be conveyed in one concise sentence.
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 very simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what it returns and the language. It also leverages the annotations for safety context. However, it omits any detail about the exact format of the greeting, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the annotations' completeness.
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%, with the parameter 'name' already well described in the input schema. The description repeats the same wording in its parameter section without adding any new meaning, so it provides no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource ('a simple Hello World greeting message'). It also specifies the language as Japanese, which helps distinguish it from any potential generic greeting utilities. Despite lacking explicit sibling differentiation, there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 'When to use' section merely restates the tool's purpose ('Returns a simple Hello World greeting message in Japanese') and provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is essentially a tautology and offers no actionable usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.
Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.
With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.
The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.
