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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds substantial context the agent cannot get elsewhere: the required permission scope (servers:console), that no session link is ever issued to an agent, that the login password is never returned through this tool, and a precise enumeration of failure codes with remedies. No annotation is contradicted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the RUNNING/ACTIVE precondition, followed by behavioral caveats and then the error taxonomy. The error-code list is dense but each code maps to a distinct remediation, so it earns its length; the trailing permission/account note is slightly tacked-on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value — it does, stating a console page link and explicitly what is NOT returned (session token, login password). Combined with the precondition, permission requirement, and full failure-code coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 there is a single parameter with a descriptive field and a pointer to gpucloud_list_servers, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond what the schema already states, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns a link to the web (VNC) console page of a RUNNING/ACTIVE server. It is unambiguous and clearly separable from data-returning siblings like gpucloud_get_server, since it explicitly says it merely issues a page link and never a console session token.

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 clear context for use (owner signed in, to repair SSH or network on a running server) and enumerates the refusal conditions with remediation (start, restore, retry, credits/budget, failed/deleted), which effectively defines when-not-to-expect-success. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools an agent should call instead in those cases, so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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