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

The description fully discloses behavior: it returns a greeting string with the input name. This complements the readOnlyHint annotation. There are no contradictions, and the description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return format.

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?

Three focused sentences: purpose, usage guidelines with alternatives, and return description. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, caveats, and return value. It is fully complete.

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 schema already describes the 'name' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing usage examples ('e.g. healthcheck or agent-1'), enhancing semantic understanding even though the baseline is 3 due to schema coverage.

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 purpose as a connectivity check for the Nordic MCP server. It uses specific verbs ('confirms', 'respond') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_filings by explicitly stating it is not a proxy for database health.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use at session start before other calls, and do not use for database health—instead call search_filings. This directly addresses when to use and when not to, with a clear alternative.

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