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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating query. The description adds useful scope and specificity about current hardware data, but does not mention refresh behavior, availability caveats, or operational limits beyond that.

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?

One focused sentence front-loads the action and resource, then packs in the most useful distinguishing details. Every clause contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant restatement of schema-driven 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 read-only query with a single optional documentation parameter and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what data is available and the scope of retrieval, while the schema covers the filtering option and the output schema covers return structure.

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 only parameter is already fully documented by the input schema with an enum and a 'leave blank for full catalog' explanation. The description adds value by mentioning concrete hardware variants like GB500, B200, and B200 Rack, though it does not fully map these names to the enum values spark, station, and b200.

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 uses a precise verb, 'Retrieves', and names the exact resource: current hardware tiers, VRAM capacity, and continuous batching concurrency limits for Aradia DGX systems. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which handle onboarding, ROI, and procurement rather than hardware specification queries.

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 clearly establishes when this tool is relevant: whenever hardware tier, VRAM, or batching limits are needed. It does not explicitly state 'do not use for procurement/ROI', but the sibling tool names are clearly non-overlapping, so the usage context is unambiguous.

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