get_stock_server

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations, confirming this is a safe read operation. It adds the endpoint name 'stocks/show' but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as response shape, pagination, or potential absence of data. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. The endpoint reference in parentheses adds useful context without bloating the text.

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 get-by-id tool with one well-documented parameter and safe annotations, the description is mostly complete. The only minor gap is that 'детальная информация' does not enumerate which details are returned, and there is no output schema to fill that gap; nevertheless, the intended use is clear.

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 only parameter 'id' is already documented as 'ID stock-сервера из list_stock_servers', so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to given full schema coverage.

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 clear action and resource: retrieving detailed information about a specific stock-server, with the endpoint 'stocks/show' as a cross-reference. It distinguishes itself from list_stock_servers by specifying 'конкретном' (specific), though it does not explicitly contrast with get_server.

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 rather than explicit: the phrase 'конкретном stock-сервере' suggests using this tool when you already have a particular stock-server ID, and the schema reference to list_stock_servers hints at a list-then-get flow. However, there is no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance or explicit alternative comparison.

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