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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the tool data reflects 'the last live check', signaling possible staleness, and it discloses the shape of the payload (tools, address, client add-instructions).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope ('one listed server') leads and the payload contents follow. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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 burden of return-value explanation and does so adequately (tools, address, multi-client setup). Minor gap: no mention of behavior for an unknown/removed slug, but for a simple read tool this is close to complete.

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% and the single slug parameter is documented in the schema as coming from search_servers. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup-failure semantics beyond what the schema already carries, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource: fetch the complete record for a single server, and enumerates what 'everything' includes (tools from last live check, address, add-to-client instructions). It implicitly contrasts with search_servers by scoping to 'one listed server', but never names the discovery sibling 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 only implied: 'one listed server' hints this is the detail lookup that follows a search, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative named. An agent can infer the flow but is not guided.

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