get_server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: it will not expose secrets and performs no network/API calls, which is exactly the kind of assurance an agent needs before surfacing config data.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return content comes first and the two safety constraints ('without exposing secrets', 'without making API calls') are packed into the same clause without bloat.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient — it names the data returned and the no-secrets/no-API guarantees. No output schema exists, and the description gives only a summary of the return shape rather than enumerating config fields, which is the one modest gap.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. No syntactic or format guidance is needed for a no-arg call.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and precisely names the two resources delivered: local configuration and token expiration status. The scope marker 'local ... without making API calls' cleanly separates it from the entire sibling set of ad-account/API tools.

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 'local configuration and token expiration status' framing suggests a diagnostics/health-check use case, and 'without making API calls' hints at when it is cheap to call. No explicit when-to-use trigger or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer the context.

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