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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: the tool rejects the call when the tier's active-endpoint cap would be exceeded, plus remediation. It omits auth requirements, idempotency, and what happens if the endpoint is already active.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the failure condition plus remedy following. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the main failure mode. It could say more about auth/permissions and the success result, but the essential calling information 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 never mentions endpoint_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The single parameter is self-evident, but the description does nothing to clarify its format or accepted values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resume a paused endpoint') and implicitly contrasts with the sibling pause_endpoint by naming the state it operates on. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 explains the precondition for success (resuming must not exceed the tier's active-endpoint cap) and names the alternatives (upgrade or pause another endpoint). It doesn't explicitly say 'use when an endpoint is paused', but the state is stated in the first sentence.

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