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 genuine value beyond that by naming the endpoint (GET /servers) and disclosing the return payload, including actionable state flags such as reboot/upgrade required and connection status.

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 covering scope, fields and endpoint, with no wasted prose. The long field enumeration is dense but each item is informative, so it earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does so by enumerating the server attributes. Pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema, which handles it well, so nothing critical is missing for a simple read-only list tool.

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%, so both pagination parameters (page, limit) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('List') and resource ('servers in your SpinupWP team'), and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from spinupwp_get_server (single server) and spinupwp_list_sites. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 implied by the scope — it is the bulk-listing counterpart to get_server — but the description never states when to prefer this tool over get_server or list_sites, nor any prerequisite. Adequate but implicit only.

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