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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the status value set (provisioning, running, stopped) and the fact that access fields (SSH command, Jupyter token, app URL) only appear once the server is running, which tells an agent to expect partial payloads. It says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent id or about auth, keeping it below 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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the payload listed efficiently; nothing is padded. The nested colon-and-parenthesis list is slightly dense but readable and earns its space.

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 does the work of describing return values, and it covers the main ones plus their state dependence. The remaining gap is the required id argument, which is unaddressed, and no note on failure behavior for an invalid or deleted server.

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?

The single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — and it never explains what the id is, where to obtain it (presumably list_servers), or its format. 'One server' is the only link between the parameter and the resource, leaving the only required input essentially undocumented.

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 states the resource clearly — a single server — and enumerates the payload (status, current activity, cost so far, SSH/Jupyter/app access), which implicitly separates it from list_servers. It never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', so the operation is inferred rather than stated, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'One server' suggests this is the per-server detail call as opposed to the list call, and the mention of 'once running' hints at polling behavior. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_servers/get_account, and no stated prerequisite such as needing an id from list_servers.

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