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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read operation and the description mentions pricing plans, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, auth requirements beyond the schema, or any side effects. It is not misleading, just minimal.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It communicates the core purpose and an added detail (pricing plans) without any wasted words.

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?

This is a simple read tool with only two parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description is minimally viable, giving the purpose and one extra detail, but it does not describe the return structure or any edge cases. It is adequate for a simple get-by-id tool but leaves room for more context.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters (api_key and server_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond indicating that server details and pricing plans will be returned, so it stays at the schema-coverage baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('server details'), and adds distinguishing information ('including pricing plans'). It clearly separates this from sibling tools like list_servers, which likely returns a collection of servers.

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 implies the tool is used to fetch details for a specific server, which is contextually useful relative to list_servers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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