server_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Report' weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about latency, whether it touches the network, what 'optional capabilities' actually means, or what the response looks like — and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the two things it returns (version, enabled capabilities) are stated immediately.

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 trivial zero-parameter probe this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should sketch the response shape — for example how capabilities are enumerated — so an agent knows what it will receive.

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 schema is an empty object. Baseline 4 applies.

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: it reports the server version and the set of enabled optional capabilities. That purpose is unmistakable and cannot be confused with any sibling, which are all astronomy data/plotting tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer it should call this to discover server version or capability availability, but the description never says when to prefer it or what to do with the result. No alternatives are named, though none of the siblings compete for this job.

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