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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: private/local refusal, unreachable handling, omission of player names/identifiers, and the six-item cap for shop_products.

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 front-loaded with what is looked up and how, then adds return fields and edge cases in compact sentences. Every clause carries useful information without repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description responsibly lists the returned fields and key caveats such as unreachable servers and excluded player data. For a single-parameter read tool, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 sole parameter at 100% coverage, including its accepted format. The description restates and exemplifies the format but adds no additional syntax, validation, or edge-case meaning beyond the 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?

Uses a specific verb and resource (look up a public FiveM server) and immediately scopes it to cfx.re join codes/links or host:port. This clearly separates it from siblings such as check_compatibility or validate_server_cfg, which operate on other targets.

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?

Explains accepted inputs and explicitly notes that private/local addresses are refused and offline servers are reported unreachable, which clarifies usage boundaries. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or say when to prefer them, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing guidance.

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