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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns additional credit by disclosing the auth requirement ("No API key needed") and the shape of the response (up to `limit` per page with address, players online, votes, links). Pagination caps (page 25) are left to the schema rather than the description.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, filters, return shape, plus one auth note. Nothing is padded and the core action is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 correctly summarizes what comes back and confirms no auth is needed, which is the essential missing context for an 8-parameter search tool with all-optional params. It stops short of explaining default behavior with no filters or result-count/ordering guarantees.

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%, with enums documented and per-parameter explanations already in place, so the description only restates the filter categories. It adds no format or interaction semantics (e.g. how tag and query combine) beyond the schema; 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?

Specific verb+resource: "Search the VoxelRank server list" plus the filter dimensions (game, tag, country, keyword) and sorting. It clearly differs from get_server and list_my_servers by being a filtered list search, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with top_servers, the closest sibling.

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 only implied: the filter list tells the agent this is the browse/filter entry point, and "No API key needed" signals availability. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-top_servers guidance and no statement of what happens when filters are omitted (all servers returned?).

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