describe_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral value by explaining that this is a single combined call and that the MCP tool list is intentionally not duplicated, which clarifies a potential expectation 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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third prevents a likely confusion about omissions. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy with the annotations or schema.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description provides the needed orientation: what the tool returns and when to call it. Nothing required to invoke 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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return content rather than input semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it returns server identity, configured sites, and recent crawl jobs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that it consolidates list_sites plus several get_job_status calls, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting other 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?

The description gives clear usage context with 'Call this first to orient yourself' and names the alternatives it consolidates (list_sites, get_job_status). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the orient-first guidance and consolidation rationale are sufficient for correct selection.

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