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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses real behavioral traits: status is refreshed while an operation is in progress, a STOPPED server is still billed at the full hourly rate while a HIBERNATED one bills at the lower hibernation rate, and it requires the servers:read permission plus an account/MCP key. This is exactly the context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

It is a single long sentence, but it is front-loaded ('One server:') and the field enumeration earns its place because no output schema exists. Slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description usefully carries the return shape (status, billing, IPs, suspension, activity events) and the permission requirement. It stops short of explaining how this differs from the metrics/usage siblings, which would complete the picture.

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% for the single serverId parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning (including its origin from gpucloud_list_servers). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

The description opens with 'One server' and enumerates exactly what comes back (status, machineState, billing rate, IPs, SSH command, activity events), making the retrieve-single-server purpose concrete. It does not name or distinguish itself from near siblings like gpucloud_get_server_metrics or gpucloud_get_server_usage, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as the metrics/usage siblings. The only routing hint is in the schema ('Server id from gpucloud_list_servers'), not the description.

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