Search Api Server Get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no permission requirements, no behavior when the server_id does not exist, and no note that this is a read-only lookup. The only implicit signal is the verb 'Get'.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely tight. Nothing is wasted, but there is very little to waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and a completely undocumented 'include' parameter, the description is too sparse for an agent to call this tool confidently beyond the trivial required-ID case.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only mildly does: it implies server_id is the lookup key ('by ID'). The second parameter, 'include', has a default of empty string and is completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving its purpose opaque.

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 ('Get a single Search API server') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which is clearly distinct from the create/enable/disable siblings. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (search_api_server_list), but the singular/ID framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as search_api_server_list for discovering IDs. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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