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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (server identity and active pluggable layers) and the intended client (MCP Inspector). It doesn't disclose any side effects, but for a read-only health check with zero parameters, the description carries enough behavioral context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose ('Health / connectivity check') and then a concise explanation of the return value. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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, read-only health check with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and who uses it. There is nothing else an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The description explains what the tool returns, which is the closest relevant semantic content. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 identifies this as a health/connectivity check with a specific verb ('confirm the connection') and resource ('server identity plus active pluggable layers'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all about uploads, memories, and sessions, by being the only connectivity check.

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 states when to use it: to confirm the connection and see how the server is wired. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of a health check is clear and distinct from the sibling tools. A slight gap is not saying 'use this first before other calls' or 'not for data operations'.

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