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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the full report scope, the plan-tier gating (some fields only on Pro/Agency), the daily automated email behavior, and the known_vulnerabilities payload with severity, fixed version, and links.

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 body is one enormous run-on sentence chaining fifteen-plus comma-separated report items with no bullets or grouping, which is hard to scan even though 'Health of the server now' is correctly front-loaded. It is over-stuffed rather than appropriately sized for an agent to parse quickly.

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 carries the full burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly, including tier-dependent fields and the trailing known_vulnerabilities block. Coverage is strong; only the relationship to sibling tools and the server defaulting behavior remain unstated.

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?

There is a single optional 'server' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already states it is a name or id and optional for single-server accounts. The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or lookup 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 opening 'Health of the server now' plus a detailed enumeration of the report's contents makes the verb (report on) and resource (server) unambiguous. It never differentiates itself from close siblings such as server_facts, logs, or overview, so an agent must infer the boundary from content alone.

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 implicit: the description notes AskYourStack runs this daily and emails about problems, which signals this is the canonical health-check tool, and it conditionally scopes extra data to Pro/Agency plans. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites for calling it.

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