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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add value beyond the annotations by disclosing the required permission scope (servers:read) and the account/MCP key prerequisite, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or what an empty response means.

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 compact fragments with the resource stated first and constraints parenthesized afterwards; nothing is padded. The account/MCP-key boilerplate is somewhat generic, but it is brief and clearly secondary.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is close to adequate, but it lacks any note on return shape or pagination behavior, and no output schema exists to fill that 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 serverId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance ('from gpucloud_list_servers'). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 concrete resource ('Storage volumes attached to a server'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_server_snapshots, list_server_backups, and list_servers. It omits an explicit verb ('list'), though the tool name and the sibling family make the read intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite about needing an existing server id (that hint lives only in the schema). The permission scope and account requirement are contextual facts, not usage guidance.

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