get_resource_pool_usage

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context on top: the list envelope with a real total, the exact field set, descending-memory ordering, the -1 sentinel meaning 'unlimited', and the caveat that pool names are not cluster-qualified. That last point is a non-obvious data trap an agent needs.

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 [READ] tag and usage trigger are front-loaded and the prose is largely waste-free, though the mid-paragraph enumeration of every returned column is somewhat heavy. With no output schema that detail arguably earns its place, but it reads more densely than necessary.

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 fully carries the return-value burden — envelope shape, columns, ordering, sentinel semantics — plus the known ambiguity caveat and usage routing. Nothing needed to call and interpret 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 description coverage is 100% and both 'limit' and 'target' are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing specific beyond this — the 'limit of -1' line refers to a returned field, not the limit parameter — so the baseline 3 applies while the schema does the work.

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 opening verb+resource is exact: per-resource-pool CPU/memory reservation, limit, and current usage. It names the concrete row fields and the sort order, so an agent immediately knows what this returns and how it differs from cluster- or VM-level siblings.

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 trigger ('a VM is throttled but its host is not busy — the cap is usually the pool') and routes to named alternatives (get_vm_performance for which VMs, get_cluster_health_summary for the cluster picture). This is genuine when-to-use plus alternatives.

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