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 adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return payload shape (status values, pid, uptime) and that results are grouped by job label, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Two compact fragments that front-load the returned fields and states. The trailing raw route 'GET /servers/{id}/supervisors/status' is developer-oriented rather than agent-oriented, but it costs little.

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 read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent cannot get elsewhere: the concrete status vocabulary, the returned fields, and the grouping dimension. 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 coverage is 100% and the single server_id parameter is fully documented with a pointer to runcloud_list_servers. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; 'by job label' describes grouping of results rather than an input, and could momentarily suggest a filter parameter that does not exist.

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 precise resource and what it returns: live status (RUNNING, FATAL, BACKOFF), pid and uptime for every supervisor process. This is clearly distinct from runcloud_list_supervisors, though that sibling is never named explicitly, so the agent must infer the difference between listing supervisors and reading their live status.

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?

Monitoring intent is implied by 'live status' and the enumerated failure states, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to runcloud_list_supervisors or runcloud_reload_supervisor. Usage must be inferred.

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