get_vps_billing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false, and idempotentHint true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., return format, date range, cost breakdown), but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 six words with no filler, and the core scope ('one specific VPS') is front-loaded. It earns its place, though it is notably spare.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, this is almost sufficient, but it leaves ambiguity about what 'billing breakdown' contains (current month, historical, line items) and does not distinguish itself from similar billing tools. The safety annotations reduce the need for more behavioral disclosure.

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 0% and vps_id has no description, so the description must compensate. 'One specific VPS' implies the target, but it adds no details about the format, accepted values, or relationship to the parameter beyond the parameter name.

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 phrase 'billing breakdown for one specific VPS' names the resource and identifies the key distinguishing scope—single-VPS versus account-level billing. It is clear, though it does not use a verb and does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like get_usage_billing or get_vps_pricing.

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 provides no explicit usage guidance or alternative tools. It implies a per-VPS billing scope but never says when to use this over account-level billing tools or when not to use it.

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