server_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only-ish ('Report'), 'Cheap' (low cost/low latency expectation), and non-destructive in nature, which is appropriate for what appears to be a diagnostic read operation. The 'Cheap' disclosure is behavioral context beyond what schema conveys. It doesn't mention error conditions or response shape, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three sentences, all earning their place: the first enumerates the reported fields, the second notes the cost profile, the third gives usage guidance. Slightly dense opening sentence but efficient overall. No filler or redundancy.

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, zero-tool diagnostic with a rich output schema present, the description is complete: it enumerates what will be returned, signals cost, and gives usage intent. The output schema covers return structure. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly note this is read-only/safe, but the verb 'Report' and 'Cheap' reasonably imply that.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document param-wise. The description adds all necessary context about what is reported without needing any parameter explanation.

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 verb ('Report') with a clear resource (server info) and enumerates the exact content items: version, role, database, access mode, timeouts, search_path, recovery state. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_schemas/list_objects/list_extensions by focusing on server-level metadata, and uses the qualifier 'Cheap' to differentiate cost profile.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Useful for orientation and for diagnosing permission or timeout surprises.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'orientation' framing plus 'Cheap' cost note effectively guides an agent toward this for quick diagnostics over heavier query tools. A clear exclusions list would push this to 5.

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