Get Server Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, detailing exactly what the tool returns (call signatures, response modes, workflows, ranking, taxonomy, limits) and how detail='full' extends that. No contradiction.

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?

Description is informative but slightly verbose; it front-loads the main purpose well. Could be trimmed by removing the signature line since it's implied by the tool name, but overall it's structurally sound.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides complete context for the tool: what it returns, when to use it, and how to control detail level. No gaps remain.

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 clear enum and default. Description adds value by explaining what 'summary' and 'full' mean in terms of content (light vs adds policy notes), though the schema's description already covers the enum values well.

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 tool returns the 'orphanet-link discovery surface' including multiple specific components like tool list, call signatures, response modes, etc. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on disease or gene queries.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this first in a cold session' and provides alternative URI schemes (orphanet://tools / orphanet://capabilities). Also explains the two detail levels (summary vs full) with clear guidance on when to use each.

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