Get on-demand server session

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: credentials and internal host placement are never returned, and the call requires the services:read scope. It does not describe error behavior for a nonexistent/inaccessible ID.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste: the action, the redaction guarantee, and the auth requirement are each front-loaded and independently useful. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 one-param read with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: scope of retrieval, sensitive-data redaction, and required permission. Only the shape of a successful/error response is unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 100% and the schema even states where the ID comes from (list_temp_vms), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra meaning about the id beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 correct for a single-parameter tool.

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 ('Get one tenant-owned on-demand server session') and the singular 'one' implicitly contrasts with the list_temp_vms sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly the way a 5-level definition would.

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 only implied: retrieve a single session by ID, presumably the one returned by list_temp_vms. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, which is the minimum viable level for a lookup tool.

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