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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does so by disclosing that suspended routes and publication changes are included and by explaining status/enabled semantics and the meaning of an empty ports array.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then status semantics; nothing is wasted. The enumerated return fields slightly duplicate what the output schema already provides, keeping it just below a 5.

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 present and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values, yet it supplies the semantic layer the schema cannot (status meaning, empty-array interpretation). Nothing needed to invoke this read-only list 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Computer id from create or list, or its display name from info'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List public HTTP routes for a Celesto Cloud computer') and adds scope detail ('including suspended routes and publication changes'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling route-mutating tools (port_publish/port_unpublish), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives useful operational guidance on interpreting results ('check status before using a URL: only published routes are enabled, and the application must be listening') and explains the empty-array case. However, it never states when to call this tool versus alternatives such as cloud_computer_info or port_publish, so usage selection is only implied.

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