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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two non-obvious traits: determinism and no bootstrap requirement. This is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. It does not specify return format or side effects, but for a simple metadata probe these omissions are minor.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that packs the tool's purpose, key behavioral traits, and usage guidance without any fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 metadata endpoint with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool is, when to call it, and what decision it supports. It doesn't explicitly list the contents of the self-description, but the relevance-check framing gives a strong hint. Slightly more detail about return content would make it 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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to add. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, which 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 tool as a self-description of the humanMCP server, with a specific purpose: helping the caller decide whether the rest of the API is relevant. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all functional endpoints, by positioning it as a discovery/metadata entry point.

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 explicitly instructs to 'call this first' and notes that no bootstrap is required, giving clear guidance on when to use it. It implies that alternatives are all other API methods, and the relevance-check purpose provides context for its role in the toolset, though it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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