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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description goes beyond them: 10 results per page, default price-ascending order, per-plan payload contents, and that prices are scraped from host sites and refreshed hourly. Only pagination limits and total-count behavior are left unstated.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with capability then result shape then data freshness; nothing is redundant. The filter list is long but each item maps to a real argument, so it earns its space.

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 23-parameter, no-required-args search tool with no output schema, the description still covers return fields (specs, price, payment methods, host page, order link), page size and sort default. Remaining gaps (total result count, max page depth of 500 is only in schema) are 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?

Schema coverage is 87%, so parameter meaning is already largely documented in the schema; the description merely enumerates a subset of filters (country, RAM/CPU/disk minimums, disk type, budget, payment method, hourly, task presets) without adding syntax or interaction rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Find VPS/VDS... plans") plus the scope (2,000+ hosts) and the dimensions it can be searched on. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like compare_hosts or get_vps_host, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 filter catalog and the note that results come back "cheapest first by default", but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to siblings such as compare_hosts or list_offers. An agent can infer this is the discovery tool but gets no stated boundaries.

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