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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral data: hardware is 'reported, not attested' (a provenance caveat), VRAM is per-GPU rather than a shared pool, and it avoids double-counting legacy inventory. Those are non-obvious traits an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause and packs the qualifiers into short sentences. Every sentence carries meaning, though the final line about the legacy worker inventory is somewhat cryptic and could confuse rather than inform.

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 must characterize the return content, and it does enumerate the reported fields. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly, though the unexplained 'pi_chunk_v1' and legacy-inventory references leave minor 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail and instead spends its budget on what the call returns.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('live contributor pilot') then enumerates exactly what is reported: available/busy GPUs, offered CPU threads, stale workers, and pi_chunk_v1 throughput. The purpose is clear, though no sibling tool is named for differentiation, and the reference to a 'legacy worker inventory' is not anchored to any listed sibling.

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 read-only framing and the closing exclusion ('does not add the legacy worker inventory a second time') imply when this tool is appropriate, but no explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative (e.g. get_network_job) is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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