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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (fetch/full record) and what is returned, but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or any potential impacts. This is a read-only tool, but without annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word contributes meaning; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description effectively covers what the tool returns (full record with specific sections) and mentions the identifier type (slug). It lacks information about error scenarios or prerequisites, but is largely complete for its complexity.

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 100% with a clear description for the single parameter 'slug'. The description adds only a minor example ('e.g. github'), which does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'full record for one MCP server', and the method 'by slug'. It also lists the types of data included (install methods, tools, trust, verification, provenance), making the purpose specific and distinct from siblings like search_servers or list_capabilities.

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?

The description implicitly indicates use for fetching a single server's details by slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_servers, get_alternatives) or when not to use it. Guidance is minimal.

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