Nodehour: GPU and accelerator capacity by chip, count, term and region

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the payload is comprehensive in scope, without saying what happens for an unknown slug, whether an error is raised, or how large the response is. It neither contradicts nor meaningfully extends the 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list, which is structurally sound and short. But several list items are vague ('what you get', 'any operations'), so brevity comes at the cost of specificity rather than being purely efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does gesture at the main content categories. Against the simplicity of a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, that is roughly adequate, but the undefined slug and absent error/edge-case behavior leave gaps.

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 single parameter, slug, has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it — 'slug' is never explained as the service identifier, its expected format, or where to obtain it. The items listed ('request fields', 'operations') describe response content, not the input, so they do not compensate for the schema gap.

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 conveys that this is a detail-lookup for a single service and enumerates the kinds of content returned (request flow, response, scope/limits, fields, operations). However, it never states an explicit verb and shifts terminology from the tool name's 'proposition' to 'service', which leaves the agent to infer that these are the same entity. The singular framing loosely implies a contrast with list_propositions, but no explicit differentiation is made.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this instead of list_propositions when the agent already has a slug, and nothing mentions the sibling tools. The description also never hints at what precondition must hold (a valid slug) before calling.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that results are one-line summaries and hints at two content categories (instant lookups vs. sendable requirements), which is useful but stated too vaguely to be actionable.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the resource front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. But the compressed colon clause is ambiguous rather than efficient — the reader is left parsing what 'lookups that run instantly' means in a listing context.

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 zero-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is listed and the approximate shape of each result. It falls short on what an agent should do with the results — e.g., that describe_proposition gets details or submit_request sends a requirement — which matters given two tightly related siblings.

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 schema baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to document. The description correctly implies no input is needed to enumerate the list.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List Nodehour's services") and even a return-format hint ("with a one-line summary"), which helps decode the otherwise opaque name 'propositions'. However, the trailing clause ("lookups that run instantly, and requirements you can send") is cryptic and the description never relates this list to the sibling describe_proposition, so an agent must guess how the two fit together.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives even though describe_proposition and submit_request are obvious candidate next steps. The agent can infer this is a discovery/enumeration tool, but that inference comes from the name and annotations, not the text.

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

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the submission is persisted and receives a reference number. It says nothing about duplicate submissions, error behavior, or how the reference is returned, which matters for a 10-parameter write.

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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is vague ("kept with a reference number") but is not wasteful in length.

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 tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, an enum, and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it does not explain the return shape (presumably a reference number), the role of optional blocks like contact or specifications, or when a requirement is rejected. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at most of the payload's 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?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all — no explanation of action, budget, timing, quantity, geography, or requested_fields, and no clarification of the opaque "slug"/"anything-else" convention. With this many nested objects and an enum left undocumented, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ("Send") and resource ("a requirement") with a target ("one of Nodehour's services"), which is enough to distinguish it from the read-only siblings describe_proposition and list_propositions. It stops short of explaining what a "requirement" is relative to a "proposition", so the boundary with siblings is only implied.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the sibling tools, nor any preconditions such as whether the slug must correspond to an existing service or when to fall back to "anything-else". The agent must infer the entire usage context from the tool name and schema.

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