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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing data windows (last 24h metrics, 5-minute averages, last 30 days of incidents) and hard caps (max 15 filesystems, max 15 incidents), plus ordering (fullest filesystem first, ongoing incidents before historical). These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs to interpret the response.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent clause carries distinct payload (status, metrics, filesystems, alerts, incidents). It is dense to the point of being a run-on with heavy semicolon chaining, which costs some readability, but little is wasted.

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 and no annotations about return shape, the description fully carries the burden and does so: it specifies every major section of the response, the limits applied to each, and the identifier (outage_ uuid) needed to chain into get_outage. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents the "agt_..." uuid, display name, or hostname forms. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource ("One server in detail") and then enumerates exactly what detail means: status, last seen, OS, agent version, hardware, group, tags, escalation policy. This clearly separates it from sibling list_servers, which returns the collection rather than one server.

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 context is well implied: the uuid is sourced "from list_servers" and the description hands off to get_outage by noting it returns outage_ uuids. However, it never states a when-not condition or explicitly contrasts with get_monitor / list_servers, so it stops short of the top band.

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