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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context and it does: it discloses the data source (## Hosts table plus declared targets), that unusable rows are surfaced in 'problems' rather than dropped, and that no key material is revealed. It stops short of describing pagination behavior for result_offset.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads purpose and then the return shape; zero filler. Slightly overpacked with field names, but every clause is informative.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing returned fields (ref, host, port, user, host_key, binding_id, hosts_document, problems). The only meaningful gap is the unexplained result_offset for pagination.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies project scoping but says nothing about result_offset, leaving the pagination parameter entirely undocumented, and gives no constraint details for project_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the SSH destinations available to executor_ssh_run on a project') and ties itself to the consuming sibling, so an agent can tell it apart from executor_ssh_run without opening either schema. It also enumerates what comes back, which pins down scope precisely.

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 relationship to executor_ssh_run strongly implies 'call this to discover targets before running SSH,' but the description never says when to use it versus executor_ssh_sessions, executor_ssh_access, or list_projects, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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