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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: how wipes are detected, what each entry contains, the expected volume spike after Rust's monthly forced wipe, and the five-minute cache.

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 the core purpose, then proceeds through detection logic, entry shape, volume expectation, and caching. Each sentence adds useful operational context without wasted wording.

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 three-parameter read-only feed with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the return shape, detection basis, ordering, volume expectations, and cache behavior. An agent should be able to call it correctly without more information.

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%, so the schema already documents page, hours, and per_page with defaults and bounds. The description reinforces the look-back-window concept and newest-first ordering, but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and scope: recently wiped servers across every online server, newest first, matching a named public feed. It is clear what the tool returns and how a wipe is detected, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_server or search_servers.

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 implied by the description: use this to see recent wipe activity over a look-back window, and expect high volume after the monthly forced wipe. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_server, search_servers, or get_data_freshness.

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