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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new context: the required scope 'vms.read' and the fact that the response includes member machines and their private addresses (useful since no output schema exists). It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short fragments with the returned resource front-loaded and the scope constraint last; nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic phrasing borders on under-specification.

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 single-item getter with no output schema, the description sketches the return payload and names the permission, but omits failure behavior (e.g., unknown vpc id) and any note on whether machine data is truncated. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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?

The single 'vpc' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its reference to list_vpcs/create_vpc for obtaining the id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

Clearly identifies the resource as a single private network plus its attached machines and their private addresses, which implicitly distinguishes it from list_vpcs. The verb is implied by the name rather than stated, but an agent can tell what it retrieves.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus list_vpcs, get_vm_network, or get_vm. The only guidance-like text is the permission scope 'vms.read', which is an authorization requirement rather than usage direction.

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