Server Info

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true — it is a pure diagnostic read with no side effects. Beyond the annotation it discloses the return contents (server/client versions, supported protocol revisions, this connection's revision and client, upstream service version only when configured), which is the useful behavioral detail here.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and its subject, followed by the use condition. The middle enumeration of returned fields is dense but each item is informative rather than 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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with an output schema already present, nothing an agent needs is missing: it knows what the tool reports, the conditional nature of the upstream version, and when to call it.

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 baseline applies; there is no input semantics to explain and the description correctly does not invent any.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Report the version information of scholar-mcp") and then enumerates exactly what comes back, so the agent can distinguish it from the retrieval/citation siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition: "when asked which version or build is running or which protocol revision is in use." No alternative tool is named, but none of the siblings overlaps with this capability, so there is nothing to disambiguate against.

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