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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes the meaningful nuance that only servers the bot has actually joined are returned, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result shape.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the scope qualifier. Nothing is redundant relative to the name or title.

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 whose annotations cover its safety profile, but with no output schema the description should say what a 'server' entry contains (id, name) so an agent knows what it can feed downstream. That gap is the main incompleteness for an otherwise minimal tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining 'from list_apps.' The description adds no additional meaning about app_id, so 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 verb and resource ('Lists the Discord servers') and adds the scope qualifier 'the app's bot is in,' which distinguishes servers from channels or roles. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing from resource nouns alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can deduce this is the way to enumerate servers for an app, and the schema points to list_apps for the ID. There is no stated when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g. list_channels for per-server detail).

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