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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses that unavailable or over-budget sizes will be refused by the order tool, that a free trial keeps its size until a payment method is added, and that the response includes a restart_notice sentence meant to be shown to the user. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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?

Purpose and the returned fields are front-loaded, and the conditional cluster_id behavior follows. It is dense and runs long as a single block, so the resize/restart_notice portion would read better as a separate paragraph, but little is wasted.

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, yet the description compensates by describing what the answer contains in both modes, including the resize list, per-plan price, resizability with reasons, and restart_notice. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result without further tools.

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 optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds real meaning: cluster_id must be a playground running on Ankra Cloud, and when supplied the response gains a 'resize' array whose ids are the exact inputs resize_playground accepts.

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 names a specific verb and resource (list orderable Ankra Playground sizes with fixed monthly prices) and enumerates exactly what each entry carries: availability, memory budget/headroom, billing plan and card status. It is unmistakably distinct from sibling read tools like get_playground_status or list_limit_requests.

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 timing is given: call before create_playground or resize_playground, because it supplies the valid size ids. It also names the alternative path (offer request_limit_increase when a size does not fit the memory budget instead of retrying) and the conditional parameter case (pass cluster_id for Ankra Cloud playgrounds).

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