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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the workflow dependency: the returned blockchain/cloud IDs are the valid inputs for create_node, which is behavioral context not present in structured fields. It stops short of describing catalog size, caching, or how often options change.

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 short sentences with no filler: the resource is stated first, and the workflow instruction follows. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and closed-world behavior, the description supplies exactly the missing piece – why to call it and in what order relative to create_node. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is absent.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The statement that the call yields blockchain and cloud IDs adds orientation to the (parameterless) return content rather than to any input.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource ('blockchain/cloud/network combinations for node deployment'), which no other sibling covers. An agent can distinguish it from list_nodes, list_projects, and get_platform_status without opening any schema.

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 explicitly names the downstream sibling ('Call before create_node') and states the purpose of the call (to obtain valid blockchain and cloud IDs). It does not state exclusions or what to do if the call is skipped, but the pre-call ordering is unambiguous.

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