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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond that: returned secrets are stripped, which tells the agent what it will and won't receive.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, and the parenthetical qualification is placed where it is needed. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 set expectations for the return value; it names only that secrets are stripped and omits the shape of the server object and not-found behavior. Adequate for a trivial one-param read, but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the single id parameter carries no schema description. The description only implies 'id' and adds the org-scoping constraint, without stating format, source, or how to obtain a valid id — insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (get an MCP upstream server) and the scope (org-scoped, by id). The phrase 'one ... by id' implicitly distinguishes it from list_mcp_servers, though no sibling is named 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 implied by 'by id' versus the list_mcp_servers sibling, but there is no explicit statement of when to fetch a single server instead of listing, and no mention that the id comes from a prior list call.

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