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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the description usefully adds ordering (newest first), a time window (last 7 days), and the fields returned. It omits pagination or result-size behavior, and the phrase 'running, starting and stopped' does not match the schema enum values (provisioning, running, stopped), leaving the agent to guess whether 'starting' means 'provisioning'.

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 front-loaded sentence packs scope, ordering, and returned fields with no filler. Slight deduction for the loose 'running, starting and stopped' phrasing, which reads as an enumeration of results rather than a clear filter description.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and how it is ordered, which is most of what an agent needs. The gaps are the unexplained status filter and the mismatch between the description's status vocabulary and the schema enum.

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% for the single status parameter, so the description must carry that meaning, and it does not: it never says the status enum acts as a filter, nor explains the value provisioning. Worse, the natural-language status names in the description (starting) differ from the enum values, which creates ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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 a specific resource ('your servers') with scope ('newest first', limited to the last 7 days) and lists the returned fields (status, price, access), so an agent immediately knows this is a listing call distinct from the singular get_server. It stops short of naming siblings, but the scope detail alone separates it from get_server and launch_server.

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 implied through the scope statement (your servers, newest first, last 7 days), which tells an agent this is the broad listing entry point. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_server for detail, and no statement about whether the 7-day window is fixed or adjustable.

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