get_server_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses the diagnostic scope and, importantly, that 'the API key is never shown,' which is a useful security assurance for a status tool. It does not mention rate limits or latency, keeping it just below the top score.

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?

It is a single sentence, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed by a compact colon-list of what it returns. Every clause earns its place; the density is high but there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (version, permissions, tool sets, reachability, field/stream counts). The only minor gap is that it does not explain the text/json output_format choice, but for a read-only diagnostic tool this is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter (output_format, an enum with a stated default) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 states a specific diagnostic purpose (check the connection when tools are missing or fail) and enumerates exactly what it reports: server version, permission classes, tool set, registered/hidden tools, backend reachability, and athlete field/stream counts. This clearly separates it from the data-fetching siblings, which retrieve training data rather than diagnosing server state.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use to check the connection when tools are missing or fail.' That is a strong context signal for selecting this tool over siblings. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or a concrete alternative, but the when-to-use is unambiguous.

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