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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description isn't obligated to restate that. It instead adds non-obvious behavioural context: the values come from a once-daily turbocheck report, reflect the last collection period rather than the query moment, and a recent throttle may only surface on the next run — exactly the kind of freshness limitation an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is retrieved before the caveat. The parenthetical metric list is slightly dense but every clause carries information — nothing is padding.

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 single-parameter read-only tool this covers purpose, metric scope and the major staleness pitfall. With no output schema present, a brief hint at the shape of the returned counters (limits vs. current usage) would make it fully self-sufficient, but the gap is minor.

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?

Only one parameter (domain) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already providing an example value. The description adds no format, validation or scoping detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: retrieving CloudLinux/LVE resource limits for a domain, and enumerates the monitored dimensions (CPU, memory, processes, I/O). That is enough to separate it from generic siblings like get_webspace_usage or get_performance_score, though it never explicitly names the neighbouring tool it could be confused with.

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 — an agent infers 'use this to inspect a domain's LVE limits'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as get_webspace_usage, but the daily-report caveat does tell the agent when the data is and isn't appropriate (not for live/diagnostic queries).

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