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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint, so the description carries the real burden and delivers unusual depth: asleep_awake semantics (awakeShare null = pace unknown, estMonthlyUsd = cap), that a removed server is not_running even if its build said 'ok', and that `live` null means unchecked. Minor duplication of 'read-only' from the annotation, but net value is high.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and information-dense; almost every clause conveys distinct return-data meaning. It is notation-heavy with backticked field names, which makes it read like a data dictionary rather than prose, but little is wasted.

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 must explain the return payload, and it does so comprehensively for a read tool: it lists every domain covered and disambiguates the ambiguous states (awakeShare, live, not_running). Combined with the readOnlyHint annotation, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

One required parameter at 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'one project in one call' implies projectId selects the target, but the description adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond that inference, leaving the parameter only weakly documented.

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+resource ('everything to operate one project in one call') and then enumerates the exact contents returned (URLs, server state, prices, machineIds, last build, hosting, domain, email, payments, databases, volumes, balance). This differentiates it from siblings like list_projects and get_status by scope and depth.

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 routing ('Start here for an existing project') and names lavela.check_health as the tool that actually checks health when `live` is null. It does not state when NOT to use it versus list_projects or account_status, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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