Server, credential and limit status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee, 'Never returns the key itself,' which goes beyond structured hints and addresses a security-relevant concern.

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 no filler. The main reporting scope is front-loaded, followed by a direct usage instruction and a security note. 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 no-parameter read-only status tool, the description enumerates all reported fields, gives a clear usage condition, and clarifies the key-handling behavior. There is no output schema, so enumerating the contents is sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 description fully covers parameter semantics trivially. The description adds no param details, but none are needed; baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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 ('Report') with a clear resource (server/configuration/status) and enumerates exactly what is reported: server version, API key configuration status, remaining credit, default panel, and limits. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_models and get_debug_logs.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first when consult fails with an authentication error.' This clearly tells the agent when to prefer this tool and implicitly frames the alternative (consult). No ambiguity remains about usage context.

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