Discover server authentication settings

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context beyond that: it requires no authentication and succeeds even when the API token is invalid. This is exactly the kind of auth-related behavioral disclosure the rubric rewards, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and return details, the second gives the use cases, and the third adds the crucial auth caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, and an important behavioral edge case (token-invalid success). No output schema exists, but the description's clarity about what data is returned compensates sufficiently for this simple tool.

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 the input schema is empty and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline score of 4 applies here; the description adds contextual meaning about what the tool returns rather than parameter details, which is appropriate when there are no parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names the exact resource ('Endpoint Central server's login configuration'), then enumerates the specific data returned: whether local authentication only is accepted, which AD domains are enabled, and the default domain. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on reports, patches, and inventory.

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 identifies clear use cases: confirming connectivity and identifying the AD domain for a service account. The note that this is the only unauthenticated endpoint gives a strong 'when to use this vs alternatives' signal, but it stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or saying when not to use it.

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