Find buyable server capacity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and rises to it by declaring 'Read-only, free' and disclosing the ordering and included fields. It does not state auth requirements or pagination behavior, but for a safe read-only listing the safety and cost profile is well covered.

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?

Front-loads the key behavioral facts ('Read-only, free') then the result shape, then the usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (monthly price, recommendation flag, retirement dates). Purpose, usage, and return content are covered; only minor behavioral detail like auth and pagination is absent, leaving it near but not fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters (limit, location, min_cores, server_type, architecture, min_memory_gb, include_retiring). The description adds only marginal framing ('where', retirement dates) beyond that, so the baseline of 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 verb+resource with precise scope: 'Lists which server types can be ordered right now and where.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like cloud_list_server_types and cloud_list_locations by emphasizing live availability and ordering logic (recommended first, then cheapest), so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use trigger: 'Use it before creating a server to avoid resource_unavailable errors and to pick a fallback location,' naming the scenario and the payoff. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling or a when-not-to-use condition, 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.