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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the remaining burden is light. The description still adds real value by disclosing the ordering rule (best first by largest model that fits fully in memory) and that entries carry prices, letting an agent predict result shape without a schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and follows with the ranking rule. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical enumeration is slightly redundant with the schema's list description.

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 two-parameter, fully documented, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: what the returned list contains and how it is ordered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the enum plus full list enumeration lives in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's parenthetical (all cards, cards under a price, used cards, Macs and mini PCs) loosely mirrors the list values but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource — the ranked 'best for local AI' hardware lists of a market — and defines the ranking criterion (most capable model run fully in memory) plus what's included (prices). It implicitly separates itself from find_hardware/compare_hardware by being curated ranked lists rather than search or comparison, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to get a curated, price-annotated ranking for a market. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over find_hardware or compare_hardware, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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