GoMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns a personalized greeting, defaults to 'World' if no name given, and can verify server connectivity. However, it doesn't mention error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or other operational constraints that would be helpful for a tool with server connectivity implications.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states purpose, explains default behavior, and provides usage guidelines. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, default behavior, and use cases. However, without an output schema, it could more explicitly describe the return format (though 'personalized greeting message' is somewhat informative).

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about the default behavior ('If no name is provided, defaults to 'World'') which provides semantic understanding beyond the empty schema. This compensates adequately for the lack of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Greet a user by name' with a specific verb (greet) and resource (user). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on greetings rather than reporting, configuration, or document searches. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential greeting alternatives (none exist in siblings).

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this tool to verify server connectivity or welcome a user.' This gives practical scenarios for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for similar purposes (though siblings serve different functions).

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