Server status

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that the default path makes no API call, that details incurs a network call rate-limited to once per 60 seconds, that it validates the API key, and that the tool policy file explains a missing tool. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs to reason about cost and diagnose failures.

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?

Front-loaded with the default behavior and its outputs, then the opt-in cost. The second sentence is a long run-on that buries the 60-second rate limit mid-clause, slightly hurting scanability, but no sentence is filler.

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 one-optional-boolean diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the cost model, the rate limit, and the troubleshooting role. Nothing needed to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single boolean; the description still adds meaning by spelling out what 'details' actually checks (Lexware answers and accepts the key, policy file loaded) rather than just naming the targets. It stops short of saying what the extra data looks like or how failures are reported.

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 concrete verb and resource (report which server is running) and enumerates the exact payload: name, version, transport, Python and MCP library versions, uptime. An agent knows precisely what this returns without opening anything else, and there are no siblings to disambiguate from.

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?

Clearly frames the default as a zero-cost local read ('without an API call') and tells the agent exactly when to escalate to the details variant (to check Lexware reachability/key validity and tool policy loading). It also gives the cost constraint for that variant (one API call per 60s). No exclusions or alternative tools are named, but none exist.

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