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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious operational behavior: nodes sleep, nothing inside them runs while asleep, they cannot be pinned on, and services return progressively for up to a couple of minutes after a wake. That is real context beyond the structured fields. It does not describe what a returned node record contains or whether stopped/sleeping machines still appear in the list.

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 short sentence, with the sleep/wake caveats following as supporting detail. The second sentence is long and clause-heavy, packing sleep behavior, wake timing and retry advice into one run-on, but every clause carries operationally useful information rather than filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the failure modes an agent will actually hit (sleeping nodes, staggered service startup, needing to re-call). The remaining gap is that it never says what the listing looks like or what 'selected for this connection' means, which an agent must infer after the call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (empty schema, additionalProperties false, 100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?

'List the active Nerdit nodes selected for this connection' gives a specific verb (list) plus resource (nodes/machines) and scopes it to the current connection, which cleanly separates it from siblings like nerdit_list_projects, nerdit_list_domains and nerdit_list_tools. It never explicitly names a sibling or contrasts itself with one, so it stops 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?

The description implies when the tool is relevant (to see which machines are attached to this connection) and gives retry guidance for a waking box ('wait and call again'), but it never states when to prefer this over adjacent inventory tools such as list_projects or list_tools. Usage has to be inferred from the resource noun.

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