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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds only that the README is trimmed and which fields come back, which is modest extra context rather than new behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the field list. The enumerated field list partly duplicates the output schema, but the text remains efficient with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param), an output schema exists to explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. Little is missing, though a note on using slugs only from search results and on markdown vs json tradeoffs would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 slug, include_readme and response_format are already documented with defaults and the 8,000-character trim. The description repeats the include_readme trimming but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('Details for one server by slug') and enumerates the returned facets (description, tools, auth, transport, health, packages, links). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_servers by operating on a single slug, though it never names siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should fetch a slug obtained from search results, and the schema's slug description hints at this. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of compare_servers, and no advice on when to set include_readme.

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