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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the scope boundary between the unowned store catalog and the company's own machines, plus the fact that pricing is in the billing currency with a fee breakdown. It does not discuss pagination or result limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, what it is not, the trigger, and the alternative. The scope distinction is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be spelled out, and the schema has no parameters to document. The description covers scope, trigger, and sibling routing, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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?

This is a zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'No parameters', which matches the empty schema and leaves no ambiguity about whether filtering arguments exist.

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 ('Lists the dedicated (physical) servers currently for sale in the store') and enumerates the returned fields (CPU, RAM, storage, datacenter, setup time, price). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_my_dedicated_servers by contrasting the store catalog of unowned machines with company-owned servers, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call it when the user asks what physical hardware is available to buy or what it would cost') and names the alternative ('Use list_my_dedicated_servers to list the company-owned dedicated servers'). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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