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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the operation is subject to subscription, RAM-pool, and disk-quota checks. This helps the agent anticipate potential failures and understand constraints, going above the structured data.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and keeps the tool purpose immediately visible.

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 simple tool with one parameter, existing output schema, and helpful annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and key constraints. No critical information appears missing for agent selection and invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, including its type and source (list_servers). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 ('Start') and resource ('game server') and explicitly scopes to 'stopped' servers, clearly distinguishing it from restart_server and stop_server. It also adds context about the checks performed, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for starting a stopped server, giving strong context for when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly exclude already-running servers or mention alternatives like restart_server, so it lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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