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

Adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: the result is rounded 0–100, requires at least two signals per GPU, orders by 'tightest first', is cached for ten minutes, and returns score only. No contradiction with readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

Three short sentences, all carrying distinct information: pricing tier, result scope, rounding/ranking, caching, and pointer to paid endpoints. No fluff, and the core deliverable is front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully covers what is returned: per-GPU score, rounded 0–100, latest day, with minimum signal count and ordering. It also tells agents where to find deeper details, making the endpoint self-sufficient.

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 input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing parameter-related because there are no parameters, which 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 the resource precisely: capacity stress score per GPU model for the latest day, score only. It distinguishes itself by naming the paid endpoints /capacity/stress and /capacity/board that carry the components and inputs.

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?

Clearly signals when to use it: for a free, quick headline score, with 'score only' and 'cached ten minutes' as practical constraints. It names alternatives implicitly by pointing to paid endpoints for detailed components and inputs, though it doesn't state an explicit 'when not to use' condition.

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