server_info

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that the result contains version, licensing, and engine availability. This adds useful context about what the endpoint exposes and is fully consistent with 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?

A single concise sentence carries the full meaning with no filler and leads directly with the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only info endpoint with an output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers all necessary decision points. No missing context could prevent an agent from safely invoking it.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics that the description needs to add. The description correctly focuses on the returned information rather than 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 names the exact resource (MapSmith server) and the specific facts returned: version, licensing, and available engines. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling GIS data tools, which all perform spatial operations rather than expose server 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?

Although it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the description makes the intended use obvious: call this to inspect server capabilities or licensing status. No exclusions or alternative routing are needed because it is effectively the only metadata/information tool among the siblings.

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