Serverless status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds valuable behavioral detail the annotations cannot: what the response contains (enabled, idleMinutes, sleep/wake counts, last error).

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the usage trigger and then enumerates the return fields, so every clause earns its place. It could be split for readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values, and it does so concretely. For a two-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so 'project' and 'service' are already fully documented in the schema. The description refers to 'a Lizard service (app or Postgres/Redis database)' but adds no format, slug-vs-ID, or lookup guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 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 names a specific resource (Lizard service, app or database) and the exact question it answers (is it serverless / does it sleep when idle). It distinguishes the read purpose from the mutating service_sleep_set sibling only implicitly, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is 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?

It gives an explicit usage trigger — 'Use this when the user asks whether a ... is serverless' — which is strong context. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition (e.g. versus service_show or service_sleep_set), so it stops short of a 5.

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