Who am I

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not restate safety. It adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee—password never returned—which is especially valuable for an identity/credential-related tool. It does not describe every edge case, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes the key security caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only identity tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent what the tool returns at a conceptual level and reassures about sensitive data, and nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters because nothing is needed.

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 ('Show') and resource ('OctoWatch API host and account'), making the intent immediately clear. The added caveat that the password is never returned sharpens the scope and helps distinguish it from account-detail tools like get_account_readonly, which would be more about account data than host identity.

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 usage is implied: use this when you need to verify which API host and account the MCP server is connected to. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as get_account_readonly or get_user_info, and no exclusions are stated.

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