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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the 'Read-only' phrase is partly redundant. However, the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation: it depends on the customer's external Morpheus API and 'can take a few seconds', which is a useful latency warning absent from structured fields.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by routing guidance and a latency caveat. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating exactly what is returned (groups, clouds, networks, layouts, service plans with numeric ids). Combined with the routing and latency notes, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and there is only one parameter (credential_id), which the schema already documents as a UUID. The description implies the credential scopes the returned options but adds no syntax 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the provisioning options an HPE Morpheus credential can reach', then enumerates the concrete categories (groups, clouds, networks, layouts, service plans). It also names the sibling create_morpheus_cluster it feeds, so an agent can distinguish it from list_proxmox_options / list_upcloud_options by provider.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this before create_morpheus_cluster to resolve group_id, cloud_id, network_id, layout_id, and the plan ids.' This states both when to use it and the specific downstream purpose, leaving nothing to inference.

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