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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes interpretation help for one returned field (kind: 'standard' for headless vs 'browser' for a screen), but says nothing about error behavior, missing servers, or freshness of capacity/project counts.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads what is retrieved, the second disambiguates an otherwise opaque field value. No filler or restatement of 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?

A read-only getter with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, so return structure needn't be re-explained. The description is sufficient to call it correctly; only usage routing against list_servers is absent.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already fully documents server_id including where to obtain it (create_server or list_servers). The 'kind' explanation describes a response field rather than a parameter, so it adds no parameter-level meaning. 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 description uses a specific verb ('Get') plus a resource ('a server') and enumerates the exact attributes returned (tier, kind, status, capacity, project count, project sharing), so it is clearly distinct from list_servers and get_project. It stops short of naming siblings or stating the single-server vs. list distinction explicitly, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of how this differs from list_servers or update_server, and no stated prerequisite such as needing a server that already exists. Usage is only inferable from the name and required server_id.

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