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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: billing is hourly by default, monthly/yearly may require credit or an invoice in billing.pending_invoice, the resource stays hourly until payment, readiness follows pending → active, pools/listeners can be added meanwhile, and retrying is safe. These details are consistent with the annotations, including idempotentHint=true, and provide exactly the operational context an agent 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 description is front-loaded with the core action and then layers in billing, readiness, retry, and scope information. It is dense but mostly earns its length for a billing-sensitive creation tool, though some billing details overlap with the schema and could be slightly tighter.

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 complex creation tool with billing implications and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it covers prerequisites, billing modes, invoice fallback, readiness timing, idempotency, and authorization scope. The schema supplies the remaining field-level constraints.

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 75%, so the schema already documents vpc, billing, and idempotency_key. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining billing coverage behavior, pending_invoice handling, actual CAD prices, and the safety of retrying with the same call; only the name parameter remains without added semantic detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Orders a load balancer in a private network.' It also adds useful scope with 'Scope: vms.create,' but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling alternatives such as create_vm or the load-balancer pool/listener tools.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it is for ordering a load balancer in a private network, requires sufficient credit for hourly billing, and explains that pools and listeners can be added while the load balancer becomes ready. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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