Current user / server info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: results depend on server configuration and the user is reported conditionally based on BUGZILLA_API_KEY. This helps the agent predict variable output without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. The main purpose (instance identity/version) is front-loaded, and the conditional auth detail is appended naturally.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description covers the key outputs (instance, version, optional user). It doesn't specify output format, but with no output schema and a simple informational result, this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description still adds useful context about what is being reported.

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') and clearly names the resource and scope: which Bugzilla instance the server talks to, its version, and the authenticated user. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from the sibling search/get/list tools, none of which cover server/instance identity.

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?

The description makes the tool's use case self-evident—checking the target instance, version, and auth state—and explicitly qualifies the user field with 'if BUGZILLA_API_KEY is configured.' It doesn't name alternatives, but no sibling offers this diagnostic information, so no exclusion is needed.

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