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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds a useful behavioral note that 'This call asks no human' (no approval prompt) and hints at response content through the field list, but says nothing about pagination, freshness, or return format.

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?

It is one dense sentence that front-loads scope ('Your servers now') and packs the returned fields without filler. The trailing clause about a hidden failed/lost/interrupted drain is hard to parse and slightly muddies the structure.

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 usefully enumerates what data comes back (state, release, upgrade, drain, disk, workloads, orphans, latest operation), filling the main gap. It does not explain return format or auth needs, but for a one-parameter read-only show tool it is largely complete.

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% and the single 'server' parameter is fully documented there ('Omit for every server'). The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond implying plural 'your servers' as the default, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 enumerates the returned data (state, release, upgrade, drain, disk, workloads, unowned leftovers, latest operation), so an agent can infer this is the current-state view of servers. But it never uses a verb like show/list and never names a sibling to contrast with, so the purpose depends on inference rather than an explicit verb+resource statement.

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 is only implied by 'now' as a current snapshot read; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing away from server_metrics, server_logs, or deployment_show. The only scoping guidance is in the schema ('Omit for every server').

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