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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The word 'Fetch' communicates that this is a read operation, and 'once status is active' adds a behavioral constraint about when it is valid. It does not discuss error behavior or the dry_run parameter, but for a simple credential-retrieval tool the transparency is adequate.

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 sentence with no filler: it states the action, the specific data returned, and the precondition. The most important information is front-loaded, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

The definition covers the basic what and when, and it enumerates the returned values (IP, root password, console URL). However, it omits operational details an agent may need, such as what dry_run does, what happens when the server is not active, and whether any authentication caveats apply beyond the supplied account_token. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, and the tool description explains none of the three parameters. dry_run is completely undocumented, and server_id and account_token rely on naming conventions rather than explicit semantics. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Fetch') and concrete resource ('IP, root password and console URL for a server'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is clearly distinct from siblings like server_action and the billing/order tools. The 'once status is active' qualifier adds a useful condition without obscuring the core purpose.

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 phrase 'once status is active' gives an explicit precondition for using the tool: credentials should only be fetched after the server reaches active status. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the credential-fetching resource set is unique among siblings, so the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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