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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds two high-value behavioral facts: the record is identical to GET /api/v1/mcp-servers/{slug}, and that it never installs or connects to the listed server—directly countering a likely agent misconception about an 'MCP server' tool.

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 tightly packed sentences with no waste; the core action and returned payload are front-loaded before the endpoint mapping and negative constraint.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return contents and clarifying it does not connect to the server, covering everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single 'slug' parameter is fully documented in the schema (including an example and source from search_mcp_servers). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one published MCP server by slug') and enumerates the returned content (connection profiles, prerequisites, billing, limitations, dated sources). An agent can distinguish this record-fetch from the sibling search_mcp_servers without opening 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?

The schema ties the slug to search_mcp_servers and the description adds a clear boundary ('Never installs or connects'), which frames usage. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not comparison against siblings in the description prose itself.

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