Quote on-demand server session (Coming soon)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the critical operational fact that the backend short-circuits with a 'tempVmComingSoon' response and that no payment, host, IP, or service allocation occurs. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey, though the description omits what a successful quote would eventually contain.

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 short clauses, status front-loaded in the first words, with zero filler. Every sentence carries usable information for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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 three-parameter, all-optional, no-output-schema tool that is currently a stub, the description adequately covers what happens on invocation (tempVmComingSoon) and that side effects are absent. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the shape of a valid quote or availability timing, but given ordering is disabled this 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%, so the schema already documents profile, ttl_minutes, and idempotency_key in detail (including enum, range, and pattern). The description adds nothing about any parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is dominated by availability status ('Coming soon: customer ordering is disabled') rather than stating what the tool does. A reader must infer from the name/title that this produces a price quote for an on-demand (temp) VM session; the phrase 'before payment, host, IP, or service allocation' only hints at its position in the ordering flow.

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 effectively signals when NOT to rely on this tool ('customer ordering is disabled'), which is genuinely useful in context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no guidance on what an agent should do instead (e.g., get_temp_vm_options, list_temp_vms) or when the capability becomes available.

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