Get server info

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

Although annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: sections are 'fetched independently,' unavailable sections 'do not fail the call,' and the 'version' field may be absent without admin credentials. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret partial responses correctly.

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 but information-dense. The opening sentence defines the tool's purpose, the second gives the most important usage context, and the third explains failure-tolerant behavior. No sentence is wasted.

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, an output schema present, and annotations declaring safety, the description covers the remaining important context: public accessibility, credential independence, per-section error behavior, and the admin-only 'version' field. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool 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 has zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 reports 'Health, capabilities and usage of the ntfy instance,' naming the specific resource. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting it is 'the one tool that works before the credentials are right,' removing ambiguity about its scope.

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 gives explicit guidance: it is 'a good first call after setup' and works before credentials are correct. This tells the agent when to select this tool even without naming an alternative, which is sufficient given the unique role of the tool among its siblings.

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