Get on-demand server options

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: an output exclusion ('Host placement is never returned') and an auth requirement ('Requires services:read'), both genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 tight sentences with the resource described first and the constraint/permission facts following. No filler or redundant restatement, though the 'coming-soon' phrasing is slightly loose.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description does state the auth scope and one output exclusion, but it does not clarify what the returned 'options' or 'launch state' actually contain, leaving the payload shape ambiguous.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics would need explaining in the description.

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 clear verb (Get) and resource (on-demand server preview options / orderable-availability launch state). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_temp_vm and list_temp_vms, though the 'coming-soon preview' framing is slightly fuzzy and it never explicitly ties itself to the temp-VM family.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the surrounding temp-VM siblings (quote_temp_vm, get_temp_vm, create_temp_vm). The only conditional information is an auth prerequisite, not an alternative-routing rule.

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