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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses what the response contains (four counts plus country), but adds nothing about failure modes, permissions, or freshness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence describing the payload, followed by the endpoint path. Tight, though the raw endpoint adds little for an agent and could be dropped.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned fields (web apps, databases, cron jobs, supervisor jobs, country), and annotations cover safety. Nothing needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and server_id is documented in the schema with a pointer to runcloud_list_servers. The description adds no extra semantics for the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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 the exact resource being returned (counts of web apps, databases, cron jobs, supervisor jobs, plus country) and the endpoint. This clearly separates it from siblings like runcloud_get_server_hardware and runcloud_get_server_health, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is for obtaining aggregate counts rather than detailed listings or health data.

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