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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real value on top: secrets are surfaced as IDs and never values (a privacy guarantee), the latest failure report is included, and non-active lifecycle states are excluded from results. It stops short of saying what happens when the target machine isn't active (error vs empty).

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the returned payload front-loaded and the scoping caveat following as a qualifier.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields does the necessary work and covers the important non-obvious one (secret IDs, not values). The only gap is failure behavior for a non-active or nonexistent machine, which an agent must guess.

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 both required parameters (orgID, machineID) carry their own patterns and descriptions, so the schema fully carries parameter semantics. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Returns one active machine's full record') and enumerates the payload: connection state, execution defaults, metadata, latest failure report. The singular 'one machine' plus the active-only scope cleanly separates it from machines_list without needing to name the sibling.

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 implies when this is appropriate by limiting results to active machines, and notes that provisioning/pool machines won't come back. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. machines_list to discover IDs, or how to inspect non-active machines), so the agent must infer routing from context alone.

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