Server settings (admin)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it says nothing about required permissions, whether admin scope is mandatory, or rate-limit/large-guild considerations for the member-count aggregation. The field enumeration hints at scope but is not behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single dense fragment with no filler, but it is front-loaded as a field inventory rather than as an action statement, which weakens scannability. Every noun earns its place by previewing a return field.

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 and zero parameters, enumerating the returned fields is genuinely the right move and the description does it. However, it omits permission/auth prerequisites and any differentiation from same-family read tools, which are the remaining open questions for a tool in an admin surface with 30+ siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The field list is arguably an implicit statement that no selector argument exists (the server is implied by context).

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 is a bare noun-phrase list of returned fields ('Server name, description, member counts, owner, verification...') rather than a verb+resource statement. Combined with the title 'Server settings (admin)' and the tool name, an agent can infer this reads server configuration, but the description never says 'get' or 'retrieve' and never distinguishes itself from discord_server_info or discord_admin_overview.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as discord_server_info (likely a non-admin variant) or discord_admin_edit_server for changes. The sibling list contains several plausibly overlapping tools and the description gives no routing signal.

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