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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. Description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond stating it recommends GPUs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant information, front-loaded with key action and context. Every word adds value.

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 output schema exists (not shown but signaled), description adequately covers the tool's purpose with three parameters. No missing context for a recommendation tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by providing examples (e.g., '1080p/1440p/4k', 'gaming-aaa/gaming-competitive/produtividade') and clarifying budget format ('em BRL'), which aids the agent in parameter selection.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('Recomenda'), resource ('top GPUs'), and context parameters (resolution, use case, budget). Distinguishes from sibling tools (analyze_build, check_compatibility) by focusing on GPU recommendation.

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?

Description implies usage when needing GPU recommendations given context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or exclusions. Siblings exist but no differentiation stated.

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