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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or potential empty results. It does not contradict the annotations (there are none).

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'List' and immediately communicates the action, resource, and scope. Every word earns its place.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the tool is low complexity. The description adequately conveys the primary action, but it does not explain the return format or any edge cases (e.g., what happens if no servers are found). This is acceptable but not rich.

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%—the 'wallet' parameter is already described as 'Payer wallet address (0x…)'. The tool description merely restates this ('payer wallet address') without adding format details or clarifying the relationship between the parameter and the listed servers beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('servers') and a scope qualifier ('provisioned by a payer wallet address'). This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_server' (which is singular) and 'list_plans' (which lists plans, not servers).

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 implies usage for listing servers associated with a wallet, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of alternatives or exclusion cases is provided.

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