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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds the inclusion/exclusion semantics and an auth requirement ('Requires: token'). It does not describe the response payload or ordering, but for a no-arg list tool this is solid added context rather than a gap.

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 tight sentences, state/scope first, then the identity mapping, then the negative guidance. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no 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?

For a no-param, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers scope, the key returned field, and the auth prerequisite. Only minor things like result ordering or size are unstated, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds cross-tool semantics by explaining that the returned `id` is the `service_id` consumed by management tools, which is meaning beyond the empty 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (account's VPS services) with an explicit scope definition: active, provisioning, suspended included; deleted/cancelled excluded. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_vps_status and list_sandboxes.

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 both positive routing ('Use the `id` as `service_id` for the management tools') and an explicit when-not case ('If a server is missing from this list it has been deleted — do not query its status or try to manage it'). This prevents the agent from wasting calls on deleted resources.

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