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

Annotations only declare the safe-read profile, but the description adds a genuinely important behavioral trait beyond them: the data is refreshed once daily, counters reflect the last polling period rather than the query moment, and a recent throttling may not surface until the next run. That freshness caveat materially changes how an agent should interpret and report results.

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?

Two compact sentences with the capability front-loaded and the caveat second, and the parenthetical metric list earns its space. It is slightly dense but nothing is redundant.

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 some of the return-value work by naming the limit dimensions and overages, and it fully covers data freshness. It does not describe the response structure or whether limits and current usage are returned separately, which is the main remaining gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 100% with a single well-described domain parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description implies the domain scoping ("einer Domain") but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema's "z. B. example.com".

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 ("abrufen") and resource (CloudLinux/LVE-Ressourcenlimits) scoped to a single domain, and enumerates the metric families returned (CPU, Speicher, Prozesse, I/O). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_performance_alerts or get_webspace_usage without opening the 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?

The description explains the data's provenance and staleness (daily turbocheck report, counters from the last collection period), which implicitly tells the agent when the result is trustworthy. However, it never names an alternative tool or states a when-not-to-use condition, so selection guidance remains inferred.

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