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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key safety trait, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, pagination, or the exact return structure. The absence of these details leaves some behavioral aspects undisclosed, though the read-only statement is valuable.

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 description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every part earns its place: the list of owned types, the returned fields, and the read-only qualifier. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what is listed, what fields are returned, and that it is read-only. It lacks details on pagination or error cases, but these are not critical for a basic read-only list. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the field enumeration.

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 the parameter computeApiKey is fully documented in the schema, including its purpose and scopes. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, staying at the baseline of 3. The description's mention of fields returned is about output, not parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource: 'machines, AI machines and pod hosts owned by the wallet behind a compute API key'. It specifies the returned fields (status, plan, region, price per hour, expiry) and notes it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cloud_list_pods or cloud_get_instance, leaving some ambiguity about scope boundaries.

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 description implies this tool lists all owned instance types, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as cloud_list_pods or cloud_get_instance. No 'when not to use' guidance or alternative tool names are provided. The usage context is only implied through the resource list.

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