server_info

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, open-world probe, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses that the call inspects the live connection and even reports whether external-asset (Data Management/Catalog) lineage is available, which tells the agent how much depth to expect from lineage tooling. It omits any note about auth prereqs or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the payload of returned fields and followed by the call-ordering advice. The field list is dense but each item is meaningful; there is no filler, though the enumeration is at the edge of being exhaustive for a description.

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 a declared output schema, the description need not spell out return shape, and it doesn't need to — it instead supplies the interpretive layer (which fields matter, what lineage availability implies). For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is complete.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument diagnostic call and adds no misleading 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?

Specific verb (report) plus resource (connected Tableau environment), and it enumerates the exact fields returned: server URL, site, product/REST API version, Metadata API endpoint, auth method, and lineage availability. This clearly separates it from the sibling lineage/query tools, which operate on content rather than connection state.

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?

"Good first call to confirm the connection and understand what lineage depth to expect" gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to a concrete downstream decision. It does not name an alternative or state exclusions, but the ordering advice is actionable and unambiguous.

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