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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with '[SIDE EFFECTS]: None (pure read-only query)', and additionally discloses the specific data domains returned (VRAM limits, batching concurrency), which goes beyond the annotations by clarifying behavioral scope.

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 organized into four clearly labeled sections, each earning its place with direct, actionable content. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the when-not-to-use guidance is compact and specific, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only query with one optional parameter and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, timing, exclusions, and side effects. The only minor gap is ambiguity between the tier enum values (spark, station, b200) and the named hardware platforms in the purpose (GB500, B200, B200 Rack), which could confuse an agent choosing a tier.

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 input schema provides full description coverage for the single optional parameter: 'Target hardware platform tier. If omitted, returns all tiers.' The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 opens with 'Retrieves physical compute specs, VRAM limits (128GB GB500, 192GB B200, 1536GB B200 Rack), and continuous batching concurrency limits for Aradia DGX systems.' This names a specific operation, resource, and scope, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like calculate_roi or execute_procurement_order.

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?

Explicit [WHEN TO USE] and [WHEN NOT TO USE] sections instruct the agent to call this during initial discovery for hardware sizing and VRAM fit, and explicitly route away from financial modeling (use calculate_roi) and order submission (use execute_procurement_order). This leaves no ambiguity about when the tool is appropriate.

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