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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: it is a status/usage read, it names the conditional fields only present for paused sandboxes (pause_reason, delete_after), and it states the token requirement. It stops short of covering error cases (unknown/expired sandbox) or freshness of the metrics.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then the return contents, then the prerequisite. Every clause carries information; the field lists are long but each item is a genuine return value rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns and it does so thoroughly, covering both status fields and usage/billing fields. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only error/edge behavior left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents sandbox_id including its pattern and an example. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond implying 'one sandbox', 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Status of one sandbox') and scopes it to a single sandbox, which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling list_sandboxes and from mutation siblings like kill_sandbox/create_sandbox. It also enumerates the concrete fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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: you call it to inspect one sandbox's state and cost, and it names the prerequisite ('Requires: token'). It never states when to prefer it over list_sandboxes or how it relates to sandbox_pricing, so the agent must infer the routing.

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