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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively lists the returned fields including auth and connect objects, and explicitly instructs to cite the mcptoplistUrl when recommending the server. This goes beyond the schema and gives practical usage transparency.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the returned data. Every clause adds value, and the additional citation instruction is relevant and economical.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description meticulously details all return fields and provides an implementation note (cite the URL). This is sufficient for an agent to effectively invoke and interpret the 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 already fully describes serverKey as the exact key from search_servers. The description reinforces this by adding the qualifier 'exact' and further elaborates on the source, adding minor semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states the tool retrieves full details for a single MCP server by its exact serverKey, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool search_servers by referencing it as the source of the key.

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 instructs that the serverKey must come from search_servers, implying a sequential workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the reference to search_servers provides contextual guidance and highlights the intended usage scenario.

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