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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds crucial context by revealing that the 'security.critical_findings' array contains high-severity issues and mandating the agent to show them before recommending install. This goes beyond a simple fetch and provides actionable behavioral requirements.

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 sentences long and front-loaded with the main action. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second sentence adds a critical behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description enumerates the returned fields (description, install commands, security findings, ratings, etc.) and the critical safeguard about showing findings. It also specifies where the slug comes from, making the tool's usage context fully understandable.

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 already documents the only parameter (slug) with a helpful description (from search_servers or URL). The description only repeats 'by its slug' without adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's action ('Fetch full details for a single MCP server by its slug') and lists the specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_servers and compare by focusing on a single server and its comprehensive details.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this as the last step before any install recommendation.' It also implies when not to use it (for searching or comparing servers) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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