Application info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already established. The description adds context by enumerating the returned fields and the optional single-value request behavior. No side effects or unusual behaviors are mentioned, but annotations cover the critical safety aspect, so the description adds meaningful value.

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 tightly worded sentences. The first states the main purpose and scope, the second explains optional parameter usage. There is no filler 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?

Given the simple read-only nature (annotated with readOnlyHint) and a single optional parameter, the description fully covers functionality. It lists the fields returned and explains the optional value_name parameter. No output schema is needed because the return fields are explicitly enumerated.

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 input schema already describes value_name with examples ("serial", "version"). The description adds the full set of available fields (version, serial, OS, Qt version, channel) and includes "name" as an additional example, giving richer semantic context than the schema alone.

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 information about the running Banana Accounting application, listing specific fields (version, serial, OS, Qt version, channel). This distinguishes it from the sibling banana_application_version, which presumably only returns the version.

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 provides clear context: use when you need application-level information. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using banana_application_version when only the version is needed. No when-not guidance is included.

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