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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations: an explicit auth requirement ('Requires: token'). It still omits return format/pagination context, but that is a real addition.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the metrics scope and followed by the parameter constraint and auth note. No filler; the enum notation is tight.

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 some return-value explanation is useful; the description covers this by naming the four metric categories returned. Combined with annotations covering safety and schema covering params, it is nearly complete, though return format/pagination is still unspecified.

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 both parameters (including the enum and default for timeframe) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the enum/default, adding no syntax or behavior beyond it; 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 operation (time-series resource metrics), the resource (a VPS), and enumerates the covered signal types (CPU %, memory, network, disk). This scope detail readily distinguishes it from the nearby status/list siblings without opening the 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?

The purpose implies a monitoring use case and the timeframe/default is noted, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g., get_vps_status vs get_vps_metrics) guidance. Usage is left to inference.

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