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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: tools are NOT exposed by default, this returns a proposal, and a human publishes it via console_url — which materially shapes how an agent should interpret the result.

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 sentences with the return contents front-loaded, then usage, then the key caveat about publication. Every sentence carries weight, though the final sentence about console_url largely restates 'a human publishes it in the console' with only a field name added.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does enumerate the meaningful fields plus the console_url. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result; only the sibling-tool boundary with reintrospect_server is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single server_id parameter is already fully documented including where to obtain it (list_my_servers or create_server). The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show one server') and enumerates exactly what comes back: proposed tools, exposure status, state, gateway URL. That enumeration plus 'one server' implicitly separates it from list_my_servers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from reintrospect_server, so the sibling separation is only partial.

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?

Gives explicit usage contexts: 'after create_server to see what was discovered, or when deciding which tools to expose,' which is clear when-to-use guidance naming a sibling. It stops short of stating when to prefer reintrospect_server or list_my_servers instead, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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