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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the free/cost profile, that results are per-platform latest quotes with inventory and observation timestamps, and that the data is supply quotes not tied to a specific device. It stops short of describing result cardinality, pagination, or quote freshness guarantees, which keeps it from a 5.

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 query purpose and return fields, then the input format, then the cost note, then the scope/alternative routing. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies return fields, input flexibility, cost, and scope limits. Only minor operational details (how many platforms, pagination, freshness window) are left unstated.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: a bare model like 'h100' or 'rtx4090' is auto-resolved against the vendor prefix, clarifying runtime matching behavior beyond the schema's enumeration of accepted forms.

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 and resource ('查询某 GPU 型号的租赁行情') and enumerates what is returned (price/region/inventory/observation time). It also explicitly marks the scope boundary versus cvin_resolve and cvin_history, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition (model-level supply quotes) and a when-not case with named alternatives: verifying a specific device should go to cvin_resolve or cvin_history. It even notes the call is free, removing cost-related hesitation.

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