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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by labeling the data as live/current occupancy and promising source URLs, which tells the agent what kind of data to expect. No behavior contradicts the annotations.

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?

One 16-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource before adding search facets and result contents. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple, read-only search with an output schema, defaults, enums, and safety annotations already in the structured data, the description covers the essential call intent and key response characteristics. Nothing critical to a first correct call is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning; 'by name, game, or map' maps directly to query, game, and map. However, sort and limit are left to their schema names and defaults, with no explanation of sort semantics or bounds, so compensation is partial.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Find' and the resource 'dedicated s&box servers,' then names the search facets (name, game, map) and key result data (occupancy, source URLs). This is enough to distinguish the tool from siblings such as get_server (single server) and search_packages (packages).

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 implies use for broad server discovery by filtering criteria, which separates it from get_server, but it never explicitly states when to choose one sibling over another or lists exclusions. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative-naming guidance, leaving routing to inference.

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