server_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses that passwords are never returned (secret redaction) and surfaces the read-only policy and authentication/TLS posture. It stops short of explicitly stating that the call has no side effects, which an agent must infer from 'Report'.

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-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the reported fields, then closes with the usage condition. The field list is long but every item is substantive; structure is sound with minimal waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it already covers purpose, the when-to-use condition, and the security behavior. For a zero-parameter introspection tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly adds no fabricated parameter guidance.

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 (Report) and a well-defined resource (this endpoint's configuration), then enumerates exactly what is reported: name, path, purpose, cluster, brokers, auth, TLS, read-only policy, Schema Registry, topic formats and exposed tools. That is far more specific than a tautology, though it never names a sibling to differentiate itself from, e.g., list_clusters or describe_topic.

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?

Gives clear context for use — confirm the target and permissions before acting — and adds the non-obvious rationale that several endpoints may target one cluster with different policies. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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