list_servers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the required OAuth-style scope 'servers:read' and specifying which fields come back. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which would have completed the picture.

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 fragments with zero padding, and the resource identification is front-loaded ahead of the scope note. The telegraphic style is efficient though slightly clipped rather than fully sentence-structured.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent actually needs: what is returned and what scope is required. Only pagination/volume expectations are missing.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The field list ('status, plan, region and IP') is arguably more about output than input, but it does not confuse parameter semantics.

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 names a specific resource (servers and shared accounts) and enumerates the fields returned (status, plan, region, IP), which distinguishes it from get_server (single server) and create_server. It lacks an explicit verb but the plural resource plus field list makes the list operation unambiguous.

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?

Listing 'your servers' implies the no-argument, list-everything use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_server for a single server, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope requirement.

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