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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. Against that lower bar the description still adds value by enumerating the returned fields, which is meaningful because no output schema exists. It stops short of disclosing error behavior (e.g., unknown id) or permission 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?

Two compact fragments, front-loaded with the returned field set, and nothing is padded. The trailing 'GET /servers/{id}' is largely redundant with the tool name and title, which is the only wasted token.

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 single-read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the field enumeration is the one piece of context an agent actually needs, and it is present. Annotations supply the safety profile. Only the absence of error/failure semantics keeps it from being fully complete.

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% and the single parameter already documents that it is the RunCloud server id sourced from runcloud_list_servers. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond restating 'by id', so the schema is doing all the work and the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope ('One server by id') and enumerates the exact attributes returned (provider, IP, OS, stack, online state, agent version, update settings, tags). That field list is what separates it from runcloud_list_servers and from the narrower runcloud_get_server_health / _stats / _hardware siblings, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the usage condition (you already have a server id), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over runcloud_list_servers, and no note that the id is obtainable from the list tool. That pointer exists only in the schema's parameter description, not in the tool description.

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