list_stock_servers

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds a useful auth disclosure: 'Токен не требуется' (token not required). It does not mention pagination or output shape, but for a simple read-only list this is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with a helpful parenthetical and an auth note. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is largely complete. The main gap is the lack of an explicit return-format statement and no pointer to get_stock_server for single-server details.

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 coverage is 100%: both location and group have descriptions, and group has a full enum. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not go beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'list available stock servers', and adds qualifying details (physical servers, standard configurations, deployment within a business day). This makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like get_server, get_servers, and get_stock_server.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. The description does not tell an agent when to prefer this over get_stock_server or order_server, so the only implied usage is the tool name itself.

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