get_config_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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that API keys are automatically masked, connection test has a 10-second timeout, and it sends a request to the /models endpoint. These are valuable behavioral traits beyond the mere statement of function, making the tool's operation predictable and safe.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Key Features and Edge Cases/Best Practices. Every sentence provides useful information, and the bullet points make it scannable. It is appropriately sized, not overly verbose, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions returning configuration, listing models, and testing connectivity, but does not specify the exact structure of the response. Given the simplicity of the tool and the richness of behavioral details provided, this is quite complete, though a brief mention of the response format would make it fully comprehensive.

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 provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with no parameters, there is nothing to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns current multsearch MCP server configuration and tests API connectivity.' The verb 'returns' and 'tests' are specific, and the resource is well-defined. It also lists key features (configuration check, connection test, model discovery) which further clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_search or get_sources.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool first when debugging connection or configuration issues.' This gives a clear context for when to employ the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is a clear context with no exclusions, qualifying for a 4.

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