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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those flags by stating it requires no PinBridge scope and by enumerating the returned fields. This is useful safety and invocation context that the structured data does not capture.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, and the return summary and scope note are in the final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states the purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and its authorization requirement. An agent has everything needed 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 parameter-level documentation is unnecessary. The description adds relevant semantic context by clarifying that no PinBridge scope is needed, which indirectly reassures an agent that no authorization parameter or setup is required. This meets the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report this server's version, target PinBridge API and enabled capabilities.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like get_billing_status and get_rate_meter. An agent can immediately understand the tool's unique role.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: when a client connects for the first time, or when a call fails unexpectedly, to confirm server reachability and whether write tools are enabled. It also names the alternative for workspace plan/quota inquiries: get_billing_status. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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