Greet

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no side effects, but the description adds specific behavior: accepted language formats, supported language list, default-to-English when language is unset, and the exact return shape {language, greeting, message}. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: language flexibility, supported languages, name personalization, and return shape. There is no jargon or filler.

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 simple two-parameter, zero-required tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description fully covers what an agent must know to invoke it correctly. It explains input formats, defaults, personalization, and expected output, leaving no significant gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the two parameters. It thoroughly explains 'language' as accepting names, alternate spellings, or ISO codes case-insensitively, enumerates allowed values, and explains the optional 'name' for personalization. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Return a friendly greeting in the requested language.' It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from the sibling server_info, which provides 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?

The description implies when to use it by defining its purpose and parameters, but it does not explicitly say 'use this when the user wants a greeting' or contrast it with sibling server_info. Usage context is clear enough for an agent, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or what alternatives exist.

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