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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by specifying that the response includes VPS status and deploy status, but does not mention pagination, filtering, or other behavioral traits. This is acceptable for a simple list operation but not exceptional.

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 a single, compact sentence that immediately states the action and the key output detail. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant information.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (VPS list with status and deploy status), and the annotations cover the safety behavior. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough detail for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no input is needed beyond the implicit account context, which is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Liệt kê' – list), the resource (VPS của bạn – your VPS), and the key output detail (status including deploy status). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_apps and list_plans by naming the VPS resource directly.

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 context is clear: this is a read-only listing tool for VPS instances. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over similar sibling tools, such as list_apps, or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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