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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read with no side effects, so the description's job is to add what they don't say. It does: it names the returned fields (availability, permitted task types, limits) and explicitly states no job is started, which prevents a costly misread. Missing only auth or rate-limit context.

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, purpose first, the returned data second, and the critical non-behavior last. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so in one clause. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation between this and the similarly named get_compute_job/get_service_status.

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 schema takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4.

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 ('Check') and resource ('GPU provider availability') and enumerates what the result conveys. The clause 'Does not start a job' separates it from the submit_* siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from get_compute_job or get_service_status.

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 negative constraint 'Does not start a job' implies this is a pre-flight check used before submitting work, but the description never says when to call it or names the alternatives it should be chosen over. 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.