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

The description discloses the key side effect: a real charge of one month's plan cost from the user's balance. It also adds important behavioral constraints: no automatic fallback to trial and required user confirmation before calling. This goes beyond the annotations, which only mark readOnlyHint as false.

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?

The description is compact and every sentence carries meaningful operational guidance. It could be slightly improved by moving the critical confirmation warning closer to the front, but it is not bloated or redundant.

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?

The description covers purpose, exclusions, payment side effects, and the mandatory user-consent precondition. It does not describe post-call behavior such as provisioning time or how to verify the created server via list_vps, but that is a minor gap for a paid-action tool.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters: name has a pattern and example, and tier is an enum with per-tier pricing. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the action: creating a new paid server and deducting one month's cost from the balance. It also distinguishes itself from trial-related tools by explicitly stating that get_trial/request_trial are separate and that trial upgrades happen only in the console.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: do not use it to automatically switch to a trial, do not use it to upgrade a trial server, and only call it after the user has approved the price. It even names the alternative tools (get_trial/request_trial).

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