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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the tool returns and explaining the review-status lifecycle, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention error/not-found behavior, but the gap is minor for a simple read 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 tight sentences deliver the purpose, return contents, and usage context with no filler. The key scoping fact (exact name lookup) is front-loaded before the usage note.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%: the single 'name' parameter is already described as an exact server name with an example. The description only restates 'exact name' without adding new parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get one server by its exact name') and the resource, and enumerates what is returned (manifest, review status, install snippets). This distinguishes it from search_servers, which implies broader discovery, and submit_server, which implies creation.

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 description gives a clear use case: 'Use it to check on a server you submitted; status is pending until a maintainer approves it.' This provides context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use search_servers or submit_server.

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