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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the auth prerequisite and a non-obvious ordering rule ('the first being the default') plus the shape of what comes back. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded in a single sentence with a colon-delimited enumeration of what it returns, followed by the actionable directive and prerequisite. The enumeration is dense but each item earns its place; the closing 'and follow the guide' is mildly redundant.

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 correctly steps in to describe the return contents (purpose, plans, default ordering, attachment env vars, usage guide) and the auth prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain around result size/pagination and how the optional org_name interacts with what is returned.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the 'omit to use the organization the account joined first' default. The description adds nothing about org_name, so the schema carries the semantics entirely — the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and a tightly scoped resource ('resource providers this server can provision from'), reinforced by concrete examples (PostgreSQL database, AI model), which implicitly separates it from list_resources or attach_resource. It also enumerates the returned content (purpose, plans, default ordering, attachment env vars, usage guide). It never explicitly contrasts itself with a named sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states a clear when-to-use directive: read it before choosing a resource and before writing code that uses one, and follow the guide. It also gives a prerequisite ('Requires connecting a Valet account'). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative tool, so 4 rather than 5.

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