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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the not-found behavior ('Если карточки нет — found=false') and clarifies the accepted identifier formats. This is useful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema, though it omits other details like error handling or authorization.

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 two dense sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and return contents, the second explains identifier formats and not-found behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 lookup tool, the description covers the core semantics: what the card contains, what values identifier can take, and what happens when no card is found. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be expanded further.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and type with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'identifier' can be a short slug, a /servers/author/name URL path, a name, or a package name. This is essential information for correctly invoking the tool.

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 clearly states that the tool returns a single server's catalog card containing description, page link, repository, and package. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list/search tools by specifying 'одного сервера' (one server), making the singular lookup purpose explicit.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you have an identifier for a specific server and need its catalog card. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_servers or list_atomno_servers, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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