serverinfo_get

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the version constraint (Zabbix 8.0+), that lastaccess reflects the last DB write, and that in an HA cluster this is the active node's value. No rate limits, permissions, or failure modes are described, but the HA semantics are a meaningful addition.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return fields, then handles the required-parameter provenance and sibling routing in order. The routing sentence is dense but each clause earns its place; 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?

For a single-object read tool with an output schema present, an annotated safety profile, and 100% parameter coverage, the essentials are all supplied: version scope, required input, provenance of that input, and sibling routing. Only minor behavior (error/empty-result handling) is absent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining that serverid is a required UUIDv7 and where to obtain it (settings_get output, or Reports / System information in the frontend). That provenance guidance is genuinely additive for the one required parameter, though the four optional parameters are left to the schema.

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?

Combines a specific verb (Retrieve) with the resource (Zabbix server instance info) and enumerates exactly what is returned (serverid, lastaccess, last DB update time), including the HA-cluster nuance that the active node is reported. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from apiinfo_version, hanode_get, and health_check, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Names the adjacent tools and the conditions that should route the agent elsewhere (API version, HA nodes, queue/status health), which is strong alternative-routing guidance. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use for this tool itself, so it falls just below the top mark.

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