Read MCP server resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious return semantics — each content item is either `text` or a base64 `blob`, never both. It omits auth/credential behavior for the `account` parameter and any error/rate-limit context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return-shape caveat. The trailing 'Read operation.' is largely redundant with readOnlyHint=true, but the total footprint is small enough that it does not waste much space.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the definition is on the thin side; it clarifies the payload shape but not what a 'resource' is relative to MCP prompts/tools, nor the team/account scoping needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 50%: `uri` and `account` are documented while `team_id` and `server_id` have empty descriptions. The description explains `uri` and where to obtain it, but adds nothing for `server_id` or `account`, so half the parameters remain unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one resource by `uri`'), and the singular 'one resource' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_mcp_server_resources. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the list-then-read relationship rather than being told it.

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: the schema note on `uri` ('from List MCP server resources') hints at the list-then-read workflow, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not distinguish this from get_mcp_server_prompt or call_mcp_tools.

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