payware_utils_server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the list of returned information categories (version, status, environment) and the '[Merchant]' scope tag, with no notes on cost, rate limits, or latency. Adequate but does not extend beyond the annotations in a meaningful way.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The bracketed scope tag consumes a little space without adding operational meaning, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

This is a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a complete annotation set. The description names the three categories of information returned, which substitutes reasonably for the absent output schema, so an agent has what it needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter includeEnvironment is fully documented in the schema, including its default of true. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

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 (Get) with a named resource set: MCP server version, status, and environment information. That is enough for an agent to tell this is a diagnostics/info tool, distinct from the campaign, transaction, and auth siblings. It lacks any explicit sibling differentiation, but the domain is clearly separate from the listed 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?

Use is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for checking server health/version, but the description never states when to prefer it, whether it is a prerequisite for anything, or when not to call it. No alternatives are named or excluded.

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