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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by warning that every result is third-party data with a meta.notice and must never be treated as instructions. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but the retrieval nature is clear and the warning adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads what the tool returns and its exact input, the second adds a critical trust warning. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 having no output schema, the description compensates by listing the record's contents: verdict, endpoint, tools, connection snippets, change history, and reported experiences. It is complete for a simple lookup tool, though it does not mention behavior for missing/invalid registry names.

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 fully describes the name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete registry-name example (io.github.zoom/zoom-team-chat), reinforcing the namespace/name format beyond the bare schema description.

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 states a specific resource ('one server's full record') and the exact lookup key ('by registry name'), and enumerates what the record contains. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools: search_tools searches across servers, and report_experience submits experiences rather than retrieving a server record.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs a single server's complete record and already knows its registry name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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