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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails: nothing is said about auth requirements, rate limits, what 'server info' contains, membership requirements, or error behavior for unknown IDs. The only behavioral detail is generic HTTP 200 boilerplate that conveys no tool-specific information.

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 single substantive sentence is well front-loaded, but the trailing '### Responses: **200**: Successful Response... Content-Type: application/json' block is auto-generated filler that adds no decision-relevant information. Roughly half the description is waste.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the essential identity of the operation. It omits what the returned server info actually includes and any failure modes, which an agent calling this cold would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented ('platform' as 'Platform (Discord)' and 'server_id'), so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the 'by ID' framing and does not clarify ID format or whether platform is effectively fixed to Discord.

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 first sentence gives a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('Discord server info') qualified by lookup key ('by ID'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the search_* and *_by_channel_id siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting retrieval semantics.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no pointer to alternatives such as search_im_channels for discovery or get_im_channel_by_channel_id for channels. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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