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

Adds a great deal beyond the annotations: hourly billing from now, 24 hours of credit required, monthly/yearly drawn from credit or parked in billing.pending_invoice, provisioning timeline with status pending → active, and the fixed admin user ffxfadmin with logical database defaultdb. The retry-safety sentence duplicates idempotentHint but the surrounding credit and invoice semantics are exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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?

The ordering verb and the resource lead the sentence, and each clause carries operational facts (pricing, billing, provisioning, credentials). It is dense to the point of being a single run-on paragraph, which slightly hurts scanability, but nothing is padding.

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 create tool with no output schema it covers pricing, billing mechanics, credit prerequisites, provisioning timeline and the resulting credentials, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It never says what identifier the call returns, so the agent must infer the follow-up to get_database to poll status.

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 86%, so the schema already documents vpc, engine, billing, size_gb and version in detail. The description reinforces the billing trade-off (monthly/yearly consuming credit or producing an invoice) but adds little on the remaining parameters such as name constraints or idempotency_key behavior; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — ordering a managed database — and enumerates the supported engines (PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, Valkey) plus the private-network placement. That level of detail makes it distinguishable from create_vm, create_logical_database and create_database_user without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_database_options for pricing and tells it to ask the user about the billing period; the 'Scope: vms.create' line signals the authorization surface. It does not name when to prefer e.g. fork_database or restore_database instead of a fresh order, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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