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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains runtime.loadCause categories, statusDetail server-online semantics, desiredState stopped meaning asleep, and what joinAttempts represents. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then adds only high-value semantics for lag causes, server state, and join attempts. Every sentence contributes useful context without repetition or fluff.

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 still explains the meaningful return fields and state indicators an agent needs in order to interpret listServers results. It also covers key behavioral caveats and cross-tool routing, making it complete for this zero-parameter read 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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description is not required to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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: it lists the account's Minecraft servers and enumerates the fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as getServerMetrics and dismissJoinAttempt, so an agent can identify its role without checking the schema.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to find the serverId other tools take, by the user-known server name. It also redirects metric-detail queries to getServerMetrics and join-attempt handling to dismissJoinAttempt, providing clear alternatives and context.

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