Список тарифов выделенных серверов

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by listing the returned fields and the optional location filter. Although readOnlyHint is false, the description clearly indicates a read-style operation (returns a list) and does not contradict the annotation. It lacks details like pagination, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the filter and usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key fields of the response (ID, description, CPU, IPMI, pre-installed). It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use it with the optional filter. Minor omissions like pagination are acceptable for this simple list operation.

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 schema already provides full coverage of the single 'location' parameter, including an enum and description. The description only reiterates the filter without adding new semantic value, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns a list of dedicated server presets, specifying the resource and the included fields (ID, description, CPU, IPMI support, pre-installed). It distinguishes itself from sibling preset-listing tools by focusing on dedicated servers and mentioning the target use case.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool before create_dedicated_server to select a preset_id, providing clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternatives or when not to use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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