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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: live prices, 402 payment per network, polling behavior, renewal payment rules, owner-call signing details, control operations, and interpretation of lost answers or refusals. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then enumerates the document contents efficiently. It is dense but every clause is relevant; the single long sentence is slightly packed but not wasteful.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety traits and an output schema exists, the description provides enough detail about what the documentation contains and how an agent should use it. Nothing essential for calling this zero-parameter docs tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with a documentation-fetching tool.

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 and resource: it returns Agentgates compute docs, read live as markdown. It clearly describes the document contents, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings compute_plans and compute_quote, which may overlap with the plans/pricing material mentioned.

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 phrase 'markdown written for an agent to follow in one pass' implies this is the workflow reference to consult before buying, polling, renewing, or controlling a machine. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus compute_plans or compute_quote, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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