ee_dp_about

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what the tool returns (version, data source, coverage, tool list) and clearly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It does not discuss potential latency or failure modes, but for a simple metadata endpoint this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, listing exactly what will be returned. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex behavior.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully complete. It states the exact purpose and the specific metadata fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function or how to interpret its output.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description does not need to compensate for undefined parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds clarity about the output despite no parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('metadata about this MCP server'), explicitly listing the content (version, data source, coverage, tool list). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-search tools: it is about the server itself, not decisions or guidelines.

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 implies this tool is used to get server-level metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. For an 'about' tool, the use case is self-evident, but there is no explicit guidance or exclusion like 'use when you need server info'.

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