about

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the kind of information returned (purpose, version, status, how it runs) and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. While it doesn't detail response formatting, that is not critical for an about tool.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. It efficiently enumerates the aspects of the server that will be described without redundant wording.

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 simple parameterless introspection tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it reports. No output schema exists, but the listed items (purpose, version, status, how it runs) suffice for an agent to understand the expected return. There is no missing context needed to invoke it 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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and none are present. Baseline of 4 applies for parameter-free tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('this MCP server'), and elaborates on the content (purpose, version, status, how it runs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' and 'governance_model'.

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 description makes the usage context explicit: it is for describing the server's metadata. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the distinct purpose of an 'about' tool makes exclusions unnecessary. Since there are siblings, a more explicit 'use this when...' would have earned a 5, but a 4 is appropriate.

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