server_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by listing the exact informational dimensions returned (version, provenance, counts, latency, policy), but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the information is cached, whether the call itself may be slow due to latency measurement, or how policy is represented. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides a compact, informative list of the six content areas. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous context.

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 informational tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and content scope. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'exposed counts' and 'policy' mean, but the presence of an output schema compensates for any ambiguity about return structure. Overall, it is adequate and complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 is empty, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not compensate for missing parameter documentation. It also avoids inventing unnecessary parameters.

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 ('Describe') and a clear resource ('this server'), then enumerates the dimensions it covers: standard version, upstream provenance, exposed counts, latency, and policy. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling risk/control tools, which concern controls, risks, and frameworks rather than server metadata.

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?

Although there is no explicit 'when to use' statement, the context is clear: this is the only server-info tool among siblings that all address risk/control/framework operations. An agent can infer it should be used when server metadata is needed. It lacks an explicit exclusion or alternative, but the sibling set makes the use case unambiguous.

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