list_stock_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of genuinely useful context that annotations do not carry: the auth situation ('No token required') and the provisioning-time behavior of the returned inventory. It stops short of describing return format or pagination.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the resource, then qualifies it with the two facts that matter (what they are, how fast they deploy) and the auth note. No filler.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the domain context and auth note an agent needs. It would be stronger if it hinted at the result shape or how to follow up (e.g., ordering from a returned stock server).

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% — the group enum and location codes are fully documented in the schema, including the note that GPU servers are excluded from other groups. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

States a specific resource ('Available stock servers') and enriches it with a precise definition — physical servers of standard configs that deploy within a business day. This clearly separates it from get_stock_server (singular lookup) and get_servers (already-owned servers), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 'deploy within a business day' parenthetical implies the use case (finding quickly provisionable hardware), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named. Usage is left to inference.

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