Server status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add what they cannot: it discloses the two distinct payloads returned and that the safety settings enumerate enabled write-tool categories. It does not describe the shape or naming of that output, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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 with zero filler, front-loaded with the primary payload and followed by the practical triage hint. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 and no output schema, the description's burden is to say what comes back, and it does so at a useful level of abstraction for both payloads. A little more on the output structure of the safety settings would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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, so the schema imposes nothing to interpret and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, leaving nothing ambiguous.

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?

"Get the server's load averages and this MCP server's safety settings" names a specific verb and two concrete resources, and it explicitly scopes the second to "this MCP server" so it is not confused with the WHM account/domain data tools in the sibling list.

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?

"If a write tool seems to be missing, check here first" gives an explicit diagnostic trigger that no sibling covers, which is unusually actionable routing guidance. It does not state a when-not condition or name an alternative for the load-average half, but the context is clear enough that an agent will not misfire.

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