Get server overview

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the word 'snapshot'. It adds value by detailing the exact data included, which the annotation does not cover. No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the snapshot contents and followed by a single, practical usage recommendation. Every sentence contributes meaning with no 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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return contents explicitly and also gives situational guidance. For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and a read-only annotation, this is complete and sufficient.

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 provides full description of the only parameter (`guild`), and the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. Per the baseline rule, this is a 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function as a 'Structured snapshot of a server' and lists the specific contents (identity, member counts, boost status, channel outline, role count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_server_preview or get_server_widget, which focus on narrower aspects.

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 phrase 'The natural first call when starting work on a server' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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