lv_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 explicitly states the tool returns metadata and enumerates the fields (version, data source, coverage, tool list), making it obvious that this is a safe read-only operation. There are no side effects to disclose for such a simple endpoint.

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 that states the core action and lists the return contents without any wasted words or redundancy.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. An agent can confidently invoke it without needing further clarification.

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 0 parameters, and the description correctly implies it takes no input. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and there is nothing more to explain about parameter semantics.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'metadata about this MCP server', listing the exact contents (version, data source, coverage, tool list). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lv_dp_get_decision or lv_dp_search_guidelines, which focus on specific data entities.

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 context is clear: this tool is for obtaining server-level metadata and is distinct from tools that retrieve or search decisions/guidelines. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is so specific that an agent can easily infer when to use it.

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