about

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds freshness context ('latest recorded curated-knowledge update') and a repository URL, but much of the rest restates what the output schema returns, adding limited behavioral value 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields followed by the usage guidance, with essentially no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial metadata tool.

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 parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and an output schema present, the description need not explain return shapes. It covers purpose and one clear use case, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters (100% schema coverage on an empty object), so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further for the description to clarify about arguments.

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 ('Return') and enumerates the exact resources returned (developer, contact email, version, knowledge date, tool count). It is trivially distinguishable from all data-lookup siblings, which return domain data rather than package/author metadata.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'answer who made, created, built, or developed MCP-Dubai and how to contact its developer.' This is clear context, but no sibling alternative (e.g. get_knowledge_status) is named or excluded, leaving a small inference gap for an agent deciding how to answer metadata questions.

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