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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the read-scope requirement and notes that lifecycle states are included, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, or return shape.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant wording; the resource scope is front-loaded and the auth requirement follows. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

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 tool, the description covers the resource and auth requirement, but it leaves return behavior (e.g., whether all owned orders are returned, pagination, or state representation) unspecified and there is no output schema to compensate. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent.

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 identifies the resource ('Owned GPU orders and lifecycle states') but omits an explicit action verb such as list or get, so the agent must infer that this is a read operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like emt_rent or emt_terminate beyond the 'owned' scope.

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?

Only states 'Requires read scope,' which is an auth prerequisite rather than when-to-use guidance. It gives no indication of when to choose this over emt_rent, emt_terminate, or other order-related siblings.

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