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

Adds substantive behavior beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: offline servers still resolve, unknown ids are 404, aggregates are cached five minutes, `next_wipe_estimate_at` is a heuristic not a schedule, and `map_preview` is null until a RustMaps render exists. This is exactly the context an agent can't get from structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded and free of filler, but the body is one long dash-chained sentence that mixes field enumeration with behavioral caveats, making it harder to scan than a short list would be.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it does: it enumerates votes, rating, wipes, wipe-cycle estimates, force-wipe timing, and every map_preview subfield including nullability. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and the single `server_id` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source URL. The description adds no additional meaning about the id beyond what the schema already states, so 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?

The definition names the exact resource and scope ('One server in full', 'the full public record') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from list tools like search_servers or get_top_servers. It never uses an explicit retrieval verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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: it's for a single server identified by id, and the description points to `/servers/{id}/history` for a different data need. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_servers when...' routing or precondition statement.

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