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 that this hits GET /servers/{id}/supervisors and lists the returned attributes, but says nothing about pagination behavior or freshness. With annotations carrying the safety semantics, a 3 is appropriate.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the field list, plus a short endpoint reference. Every element earns its place, though the field enumeration could arguably be trimmed since there is no output schema to match it against.

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 paginated list with full schema coverage and annotation-declared safety, the description is sufficient; it even compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned fields. Only the lack of differentiation from the supervisor-status sibling leaves a small gap.

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%: page, per_page and server_id all have explicit schema descriptions including the pagination chaining hint. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names the concrete resource (supervisor/background worker jobs of a server) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It is clearly a list operation for a given server. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling runcloud_get_supervisor_status, which is the nearest alternative, 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?

Usage is only implied: the resource is 'of a server' and the endpoint shows the server_id scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The close sibling runcloud_get_supervisor_status (status of a supervisor vs listing all supervisors) is not mentioned or differentiated.

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