Server status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: it performs no API calls (so it cannot consume the quota it reports) and it surfaces a concrete limit of 1,000 requests/day for personal tokens. It stops short of stating auth requirements or how the confirmation setting affects other tools.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned fields, with the important 'Makes no API calls' constraint placed last for emphasis. It is dense but not padded; the parenthetical quota figure is the only mildly extraneous clause, though it is arguably load-bearing context.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the exact categories reported (environment, tier, signing, confirmations, request count). For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate; no parameter-level detail is expected or useful here.

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 names a specific verb and resource (shows this server's configuration) and enumerates exactly what is exposed: environment, access tier, request signing, confirmation behavior, and daily request count. It is unmistakably distinct from every banking sibling (get_account_balance, list_transactions, etc.), which are all data-retrieval tools against the Starling API.

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 only implied: the closing line 'Makes no API calls' hints that this is a free diagnostic safe to call before spending quota, but the description never says when to reach for it (troubleshooting, checking remaining quota, verifying tier) or when it is unnecessary. There is no true alternative tool to route against, so the omission is minor but real.

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