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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by stating exactly which fields come back and explicitly that passwords are excluded, preventing a wasted follow-up expectation. The required 'vms.read' scope is a genuinely useful auth precondition not present in the schema.

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: resource first, then returned fields, then the scope constraint. Every clause carries information — the field list, the password exclusion, and the permission scope all earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values and does so field by field, plus the auth scope. Minor omissions remain — no pagination/limit behavior or result ordering — but for a small account-level inventory this is close to sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, and schema coverage is 100% regardless. The description correctly signals that no filters (account, region, status) are accepted, matching the empty object schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource framing and enumerates exactly what the listing returns (status, private/public addresses, disk, backups, billing, quota), which clearly separates it from get_database or list_database_backups. It never explicitly names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the field list.

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 enumeration of what is returned — an agent can infer this is the whole-account inventory call — and the 'Scope: vms.read' note tells it which permission is exercised. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_database/list_database_backups guidance and no exclusions.

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