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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares the operation read-only and explains that the API key passes through and is never stored, which is important for safe invocation. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but the safety-critical traits are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the read-only and key-handling safety information. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple three-string-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description gives enough return-value context by listing statuses, uptime, price, spend, and budget guard state. It does not mention not-found or error behavior, but the essential calling context is present.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining provider, provider_instance_id, or api_key. It only references 'your key' and 'an instance on your account,' leaving the provider parameter and instance identifier semantics largely implicit despite the parameter names being somewhat self-explanatory.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it reports the live state of an instance on the user's account, listing the specific statuses and data fields included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like destroy_rental, limit_order_status, and watch_status without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 context is implied by 'live state of an instance on your account' and 'Read-only,' which signals when this tool is appropriate. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from sibling names rather than explicit guidance.

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