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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the returned data: online state, newest install per product, install status values, folder, and remaining setup such as dependencies, SQL, and config. It also explains that planned means waiting for the owner's confirmation, which is meaningful behavioral context not captured by the read-only 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and result scope, followed by the practical use case. It is dense and includes a long status list, but the details are relevant rather than filler.

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 explaining return values, and it does so by naming online state, per-product newest install, status values, folder, and remaining setup. For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, this is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the empty input schema. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not create ambiguity about inputs.

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: it lists the FiveM servers connected to the signed-in customer under My account. It also scopes the result to online state and the newest install of each product per server, which makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from a generic server lookup.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool to pick a server_id for install_on_server and to follow an install, giving clear usage context. It does not state when not to use it or compare it directly with lookup_server, so it stops short of full sibling routing guidance.

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