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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's remaining content is a return-field enumeration that duplicates the output schema and adds no new behavioral context such as error behavior for an unknown name or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then usage. The field list is somewhat redundant against the output schema but is compactly written; nothing is padded or buried.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and a single fully-documented parameter, the description supplies ample context for correct invocation. It could be marginally stronger by noting failure behavior for an unknown or deleted computer, but that is a minor gap.

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 'name' parameter is fully documented as 'Computer id from create or list, or its display name from info.' The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a Celesto Cloud computer's state and resource configuration') and clearly separates itself from siblings by naming cloud_computer_list as the source of the computer reference. An agent can distinguish this read/inspect tool from create, exec, start, or stop without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it: 'Use this to check readiness or inspect a computer returned by cloud_computer_list.' That names a concrete scenario and a sibling, though it stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when create/exec are the right follow-ups).

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