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 covered. The description adds substantive scope context by disclosing that data is aggregated to hub/cluster/city granularity only and that no precise coordinates exist, which meaningfully shapes what an agent can expect.

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?

Labeled sections (Purpose/Guidelines/Limits/Ex) front-load the key information efficiently with no wasted prose. The trailing 'Ex: get_compute_infrastructure().' example adds little beyond signaling that no arguments are required, a minor redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description adequately covers scope and granularity limits; only the absence of any alternate-tool routing keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (keyword, language, response_format) are self-documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (compute infrastructure) and enumerates the specific contents held: rack counts, intelligent-computing capacity, hub/cluster aggregates, and the national scheduling platform. The scope is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against any neighboring tool.

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?

'Guidelines: use for scale questions' gives a clear triggering context, and the Limits clause establishes what it will NOT return (precise facility coordinates). No sibling alternative is named, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives disclosure.

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