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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so richly: password shown ONCE, guaranteed to work only after boot completes, password_pending means call again, and the one-time reveal is not spent until a password is actually returned. It also explains ssh_ready/rdp_ready as live probes with 1-5 minute first-boot delay and the NAT internal-vs-external port firewall trap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and nearly every sentence adds non-obvious operational detail, so little is filler. However it is a very long single block that mixes access, password, boot-timing, and firewall concerns without breaks, making it dense to parse.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still defines the meaning of most return fields (password_pending, password_available, ssh_ready, internal_port, ready_note, retry_after_seconds, firewall_note) and the token requirement, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it fully documents the undocumented `reveal` parameter: what it does, its side effects, and the distinction from password_available. service_id is covered by the schema, and the description reinforces that a plain numeric id is accepted.

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 ('Get full detail for one VPS') and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, specs, live VM state/uptime, and access info. It differentiates itself from siblings by naming list_vps, order_vps, get_vps_metrics and reset_password, so an agent can route correctly without opening another 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?

Explicit routing: poll this after order_vps to watch provisioning reach `active`; use reveal=true only to fetch the password; use reset_password ONLY if the password is lost. It also states when NOT to act ('do not reset, reboot or reinstall during that window') and what a typical non-error result looks like.

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