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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful detail about what is returned, including endpoints, header names only, install packages, environment variables, live check result, tools, and capabilities. It does not discuss error behavior or rate limits, but it meaningfully enriches the annotation coverage.

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 purpose and then lists the returned information efficiently, followed by a concise routing sentence. There is no filler.

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 appropriately enumerates the returned fields and is sufficient for an agent to understand the response content. Minor gaps remain around invalid-slug behavior and exact slug format, but the definition is otherwise complete for a simple read tool.

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 schema has only one parameter and 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It does explain that slug comes from search_mcp_servers, which is useful, but it does not specify the slug format or validation behavior.

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 clearly frames this as a retrieval tool for one MCP server and enumerates the detailed record it returns. It distinguishes itself from search_mcp_servers by requiring a slug from that search, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_mcp_server_history.

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?

It gives a clear usage path: call search_mcp_servers first, then use the returned slug here. It does not state when-not-to-use or explain the alternative history tool, but the primary context is clear.

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