Server Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: on a vault read failure, `freshness` is null and `freshness_error` explains why while the rest of the response still succeeds. That partial-degradation contract is exactly the kind of thing an agent needs and can't get from the annotations.

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, zero waste. The payoff (what you get) is front-loaded, and the failure-mode caveat follows. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be enumerated, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one thing structured data can't: the degraded-response behavior on vault read failure. An agent has everything needed to call this and interpret partial results.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema (additionalProperties: false, empty properties) already makes the no-argument contract unambiguous. Baseline 4 applies to a 0-param tool.

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 states concretely what the tool returns: enabled toolsets, tier, version, and data freshness for 'this deployment' — a specific introspection resource. It reads clearly as a capability/diagnostic tool, though it never uses a verb naming the action (e.g. 'report' or 'get'). With no siblings, differentiation isn't a concern.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this to learn what is available before using other tools, but the description never says when to call it or why. With no sibling tools there is nothing to route against, so the omission is less costly, but the guidance remains implicit.

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