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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a hosted box sleeps, nothing inside runs while asleep (scheduled jobs, bots, queue workers, webhook receivers stop), it cannot be pinned on, and after a wake services return gradually for up to a couple of minutes so a not-ready service is not a failure. That retry/wake semantics is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, then the sleep/wake caveat. The caveat paragraph is long but each clause carries operational consequence; it could be tightened slightly, but nothing is padding.

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?

For a dispatcher tool with an open-ended nested arguments object and no output schema, the description supplies the missing workflow context: docs URL for machine tools, discovery via nerdit_list_tools, and latency/retry expectations. Error handling of the wrapped tool is the main thing left 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so node_id, tool_name and the nested arguments object are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Call one machine MCP tool that only reads... on one selected Nerdit node'), and the read-only qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling nerdit_call_write_tool without needing either schema opened.

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?

The read-only framing plus the pointer to nerdit_list_tools ('Name of a tool from nerdit_list_tools on this node') tells the agent the workflow precondition. It stops short of explicitly naming nerdit_call_write_tool as the alternative for mutating calls, so the contrast is implied rather than stated.

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