Server health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine extra context by bounding the tool's scope to the server process itself and enumerating what the check reflects. It stops short of anything richer (e.g. cost, latency, failure semantics), and the return-value sentence overlaps the output schema, so it is strong but not maximal.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each front-loaded with its point: purpose, when/when-not, then return shape. Every sentence carries information the agent needs, and the exclusions are placed before the alternative rather than buried.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema, annotations, and sibling tools that could be confused with it, the description supplies purpose, selection criteria, exclusions, and scope boundaries. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, but adds no parameter-level information beyond that.

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 names a specific verb and resource — confirms the upkeep-mcp server is running and reports its version — and immediately scopes it against siblings by noting it says nothing about any domain or URL. An agent can distinguish it from uptime_check/domain_check without opening any 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?

It states explicit triggering conditions (after installing or reconfiguring the server; when another upkeep-mcp tool behaves unexpectedly) and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative named ("Do not use it to check whether a website is up ... Use uptime_check for websites"). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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