Server config and guardrails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact guardrail fields returned, which gives the agent concrete expectations beyond the annotations.

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 a single, dense sentence that packs all relevant information without filler. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists specifics, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 by explicitly listing all key output fields (trading enabled, guardrails, allowed accounts/symbols). For a zero-parameter config tool, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. No parameter info is needed, and the description correctly focuses on output.

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 ('show') and resource ('server config and guardrails'), and explicitly lists the fields returned (trading enabled, max order size, max position, daily loss limit, allowed accounts/symbols). This clearly distinguishes it from trading tools like get_quote or place_order.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call this first in every session', which is a clear when-to-use directive. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but the instruction is strong and contextually sufficient.

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