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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it pins the READ-ONLY guarantee to a version (1.9.1) and explains it is safe to poll, discloses that ssh_ready/rdp_ready are live probes with a 1-5 minute post-boot delay, warns that ready commands are withheld while false, and documents the NAT/firewall trap (allow internal port, not the DNAT port). This is unusually rich operational context.

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?

The purpose is correctly front-loaded, but the body is a dense wall of parenthetical clauses (port mapping, ufw advice, retry semantics) that is hard to parse and partly tangential to a status read. It is information-rich but not economically structured.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly — password_available, access.method, ssh_ready/rdp_ready, ready_note, retry_after_seconds, internal_port, firewall_note. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation — that the legacy `reveal: true` argument is still accepted but only redirects the caller to reveal_password, and that service_id comes from list_vps/order_vps. That clarifies intent rather than merely restating 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 ('Get full detail for one VPS') and enumerates the returned facets: status, specs, live VM state/uptime, and access info. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_vps (enumeration) and get_vps_metrics (metrics-only).

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 explicit when-to-use routing: poll after order_vps to watch provisioning reach 'active'; read a pending password once via reveal_password; use reset_password ONLY if the password is lost. It also states a clear when-NOT-to-act condition — don't reset/reboot/reinstall while ssh_ready is false.

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