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

readOnlyHint=true already marks this as a safe read, and the description goes well beyond it: it explains that limit_known must be read before concluding, that Hetzner and Scaleway expose no limits so limits_exposed=false is a documented provider gap rather than zero headroom or a failed read, and it documents increase_automatable (Azure-only) and increase_instructions. This is exactly the non-obvious context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the critical field-semantics caveat, so the important routing information comes first. The prose is dense and runs long in a single clause-heavy sentence, but nearly every sentence earns its place by explaining a return field the agent would otherwise misread.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must (and does) explain the return contract: limit_known, limits_exposed, increase_automatable, increase_instructions, plus the per-provider gap behavior. For a single-parameter read tool it is complete enough that an agent can interpret the result 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 description coverage is 100% and the single credential_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (UUID from list_credentials/list_provider_credentials). The description only refers to 'a cloud-provider credential' generically, adding no source or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (report remaining per-dimension provider limits and usage for a credential) and pins the scope precisely: account/project/subscription/region, normalized across eight named providers. This scope distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_resource_quotas (Kubernetes quotas) and request_provider_quota_increase without ambiguity.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: provisioning failure, node-group scale-up failure, load balancer failure that could be a provider limit, or pre-scale checks. It stops short of naming the follow-up/alternative tool (request_provider_quota_increase) even though it describes the increase mechanism.

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