Reporting

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnly=true, destructive=false, etc.), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about what information is retrieved (configuration details) and the verification purpose, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic safety profile indicated by 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (0 parameters, comprehensive annotations indicating safe read operation), the description provides adequate context about what configuration is retrieved and the verification purpose. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by listing the configuration aspects. For a read-only configuration check tool, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what configuration aspects are retrieved, which adds semantic value about the tool's scope.

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 specific action ('Get reporting configuration') and resource ('RAS farm'), listing the key configuration aspects (report scheduling, data retention, database connection settings). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on reporting configuration, unlike other 'get' tools that target administrators, licensing, performance, etc.

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 for when to use this tool ('to verify reporting is enabled and properly configured'), which gives practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the purpose differentiation is implied.

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