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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by defining every status value (live, pr_open, needs_update, action_required, etc.) and disclosing that links to PRs, live pages, and the dashboard are returned, plus the 'works on every plan' note.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the status vocabulary, then links, then the parameter note. The long status enumeration is information-dense rather than wasteful, though the trailing 'Read-only, works on every plan' and identifier sentence partially duplicate annotations and schema.

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 compensates well by enumerating statuses and naming returned links, giving the agent a usable picture of the response. It stops short of explaining ordering or directory-matching rules, but is otherwise complete for a one-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the accepted identifier forms (id, slug, GitHub repo, exact name) are already documented in the schema and the description largely repeats them. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries this burden.

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 (Get) and resource (one server's full listing) plus scope ('its status in every directory that fits it'). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling list_servers by the singular 'one server' framing.

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 implied – fetch details for a single known server – but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like list_servers or check_listings. The mention that the identifier accepts several forms helps selection but doesn't state when this tool is the right choice.

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