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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a 10-server cap and a 90-second limit inherited from ssh_exec. Minor tension: it advertises a 90-second ceiling while the schema caps per-server timeout at 80 (default 60), leaving the relationship between the two limits unaddressed.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to prefer it over the per-server alternative, and the two operating limits. The purpose is front-loaded with zero preamble.

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 destructive, open-world batch tool with no output schema, the description covers the return content (per-server output and exit code), the fan-out limit, and the time bound. The only loose end is the unexplained gap between the stated 90-second limit and the schema's 80-second per-server maximum.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the host cap (up to 10) and the time limit, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('run the same shell command on several servers') plus the return payload (each server's output and exit code). It is clearly distinguished from its sibling ssh_exec by being the multi-host variant, so an agent can route between them without opening either 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context (compare or check a fleet — disk space, versions, service state) and contrasts it with the one-call-per-server alternative. It does not state when NOT to use it or name ssh_exec explicitly as the single-host fallback, so it stops short of the top band.

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