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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: these machines are reached over SSH, and the response includes the public key used for login plus a fingerprint, which tells the agent this is a credential-relevant read. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but for a small per-agent list that is minor.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource stated up front and the returned fields placed in a parenthetical so they don't crowd the main clause. The parenthetical is slightly dense but every element carries information.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields including the public key. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only ordering/pagination and sibling routing are unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter, agent_id, and the schema covers it at 100% with a format hint and a pointer to get_account. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier or its scoping. With full schema coverage, baseline 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 names a specific resource (the SSH-reachable servers for a given agent) and enumerates the concrete data it exposes (alias, host, user, port, note, watched, fingerprint, public key). It is clearly a per-agent listing operation, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' and does not name add_machine/remove_machine as the mutation counterparts.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, even though siblings like add_machine, remove_machine, and test_machine are obvious adjacent operations. A reader has to infer the purpose from the field list alone.

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