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

Annotations mark it non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world, but the description carries far more: that path (2) COSTS MONEY and returns an actionId requiring confirmation, that path (1) spends nothing, that it pre-checks for an existing C2 binding/VPS so retries never buy a second server, the ~2 minute server-side ship time, and the failure/retry rules gated on osirAppStatus messages. This is behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the INSTEAD-of guidance, then organizes the two entry paths clearly. It is long, but the length is mostly justified by the money/confirmation and retry semantics; a few clauses (auth note, status phrasing) are slightly repetitive.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does: actionId for staged orders, watch progress via osirAppStatus ('ownedMove'), and nextStep handling for BUILDING/BUILD_FAILED. Combined with the costing, confirmation, and retry rules, an agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds real decision semantics: instanceId means attach/nothing charged, packageId means an order is staged and charged, and it insists instanceId come from listMyVpsInstances and never be invented. It ties the parameters into the branching logic rather than merely restating them, though per-parameter syntax details still live in the schema.

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 ('Deploy a live Osir app onto the user's own VPS / server / production box') and explicitly scopes it against the shared free tier, distinguishing it from sibling tools like osirAppDeploy (shared tier) and orderVps (raw ordering). An agent can identify the exact job 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?

Explicitly says to use this INSTEAD of SSH, provisioning/install scripts, nginx/systemd/TLS config, or manual setup, and calls itself the ONLY supported way. It then lays out two mutually exclusive paths (instanceId to attach vs packageId to order) with the condition selecting each, plus prerequisites like executeConfirmedAction on approval.

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