Show how this server is configured

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond those: it performs no network interaction. It also clarifies that it reflects current state such as limits and whether sending is enabled, which helps set expectations without contradicting 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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and its concrete outputs; the second explains when to call the tool and adds a key behavioral property. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter configuration-inspection tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool reports, when to call it first, and that it is non-network-touching, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden on the description. Per the 0-param baseline, this dimension earns a 4; the description does not need to explain parameter semantics that do not exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reports') and clearly names the resource: server configuration. It enumerates exactly what the tool provides — SMTP endpoint, sender address, allowed write targets, current limits, and sending enabled state — which makes its purpose unmistakable and distinct from the network-touching sibling tools.

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 to 'Call this first' and explains why: it answers whether sending is possible and to whom without touching the network. This gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them.

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