Get Server Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing what information is returned (the discovery surface) and the effect of the 'detail' parameter. This goes beyond annotational safety information.

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 two sentences: the first lists the return contents; the second gives usage guidance and the parameter signature. Every word carries weight, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 high schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and what to expect in the return, requiring no additional elaboration.

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% with one parameter 'detail'. The description adds value by explaining that 'full' adds 'full policy notes' and provides the explicit signature. This gives functional meaning beyond the enum values in the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the 'hpo-link discovery surface' and lists its components (identity/build, tool list, response modes, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific biomedical entities like diseases or genes.

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 tells users to call this 'first in a cold session' or read alternative sources. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases or compare to siblings, the context strongly implies this is for initial session setup, which is sufficient guidance.

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