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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by disclosing what the payload contains (every tool, sizes, checks), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. 'sizes, checks' is slightly telegraphic jargon, but the sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description sketches the return shape (tools, sizes, checks) so an agent knows roughly what comes back. The terms 'sizes' and 'checks' remain underspecified, which is the only material gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The server name from find_tools'), so the schema does the documenting. The description's 'from find_tools' merely echoes that origin, adding no format or lookup guidance, which matches the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 names a specific verb (retrieves details) and resource (one MCP server), and enumerates the payload (every tool, sizes, checks). The phrase 'from find_tools' anchors it against the discovery sibling, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting the two.

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: the input comes 'from find_tools', so an agent infers this is the drill-down step after discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative beyond the passing reference.

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