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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a read-only information retrieval operation. It adds valuable context about the exact categories of configuration data returned and clarifies the 'hosted' scope, which goes beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences with no fluff. The primary use case and content are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently distinguishes sibling tools. Every word 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers when to use, what data it returns, and how it differs from related tools. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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 the schema trivially covers all parameters (100%). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter ambiguity.

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 retrieves hosted ReMCP deployment configuration including server version, endpoint, runtime release, retention/telemetry policy, hosted limits, and paired-computer versions. It explicitly contrasts with get_runtime_info and get_system_info, making the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 begins with 'Use this when...' and specifies exactly when to choose this tool over the alternatives, naming get_runtime_info and get_system_info with their scopes. This provides explicit usage context and exclusions, leaving nothing to inference.

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