Получение выделенного сервера

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

Annotation contradiction: readOnlyHint=false conflicts with the description's 'Возвращает детальную информацию' which clearly indicates a read-only operation. No additional behavioral disclosure beyond this mismatch.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. The first sentence specifies what is returned, the second gives usage context.

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?

The description lists the main fields returned (status, CPU/RAM/HDD, IP, IPMI, VNC, tariff, price, comment), compensating for the lack of an output schema. Minor omission: no error or edge-case handling, but adequate for a simple GET.

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 fully documents the single parameter (dedicated_id) with a clear description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, but does not need to given 100% 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 clearly states the tool returns detailed information about a specific dedicated server, enumerating the data fields. It distinguishes from list operations by emphasizing 'по конкретному' (specific) 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?

Explicitly says 'use when you need details on a single server' with an example (IPMI account for connection). Does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for single-server lookups rather than listing.

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