pt_comp_about

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation by stating 'Return metadata,' which implies no side effects. It also discloses what specific metadata will be returned. There are no apparent behavioral surprises, making the transparency adequate for a simple metadata tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and enumerates the metadata fields. Every word earns its place, and the structure is perfectly front-loaded with the action verb and resource.

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 trivial complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for its intended purpose and clearly differentiates from sibling tools that access specific data domains.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter detail since there are none. It adds no param semantics because none are required.

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's purpose: 'Return metadata about this MCP server.' It explicitly lists the metadata components (version, data source, coverage, tool list), using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('MCP server'). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools that search/get specific records.

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 when to use the tool (when server metadata is needed) but does not explicitly state usage context or mention alternatives. No exclusions are provided, but the intended use is fairly obvious. A more explicit statement like 'Use this to understand server capabilities or data coverage' would strengthen it.

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