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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that it may return connection commands/config, verification status, GitHub stars, wrapped API details, and a checked card including exposed tools and risks. It does not disclose error behavior or response completeness when no checked card exists, but it is substantially richer than the annotations alone.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and then enumerates the returned information. It is somewhat long and written as a run-on sentence with many clauses, but each clause contributes useful detail about what the card contains. A slightly more structured breakdown would improve scanability.

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 explain what is returned; it does so thoroughly across multiple facets of the server card. It also names the complementary search tool for discovery. It is nearly complete, missing only guidance on not-found or partial-card responses.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and already provides examples for the single 'server' parameter. The description does not add additional meaning about accepted identifier formats or matching behavior beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema already carries parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving one MCP server from the official MCP Registry. It enumerates the exact information returned (connectivity config, stars, verification, wrapped API, checked card), which makes the tool's scope immediately distinguishable from siblings. It explicitly contrasts itself with find_mcp_servers, which searches by task.

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?

The description clearly implies this is the lookup-by-identifier tool and names find_mcp_servers as the alternative for task-based discovery. However, it does not explicitly state the preconditions for using this tool, such as needing a known registry name, slug, title, or repo. It also does not say what to do if the server is not found.

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