Server information

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description nevertheless adds genuine behavioral context: it makes no QuickBooks call, so it consumes no API quota, and it explains that an hour without a refresh is normal between keepalive runs, preventing a false alarm. It does not cover latency, caching, or sensitivity of the token-store output.

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?

Only two sentences, and the operative scope constraint ('Makes no request to QuickBooks') is front-loaded at the end of the first block, where it lands with emphasis. The first sentence is overloaded with a nested relative clause about keepalive timing, which slows parsing.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it covers what categories of state are reported plus the absence of an external call. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool that is close to complete; only expected failure modes are unaddressed.

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 clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is missing or misleading.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates the exact facts it returns: build, environment, read-only status, token-store protection, and stale-company detection. 'Makes no request to QuickBooks' clearly differentiates it from every data-fetching sibling. Slight deduction because the enumerated fields are strung together in one rambling clause rather than cleanly stated.

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: an agent can infer this is a diagnostics/health tool to call when it needs server or configuration state. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of preconditions, and no named alternative among the many QuickBooks data tools.

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