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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: 'No token required' (auth requirement) and 'live' (freshness of the data), plus a consequence statement about offline GPUs. It doesn't mention rate limits or caching, keeping it short of 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return contents before the auth note and the call-to-action. Every sentence earns its place, though the opening noun list reads telegraphically rather than as a complete statement of purpose.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries the remaining burden of saying what comes back and why to call it — both of which it does. The absence of an output schema means the enumerated content categories are the only signal about return shape, and they are sufficient for an agent to decide to call it.

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 and the schema is trivially empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg tool.

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?

The description enumerates the concrete payload: live availability, model catalog, free-trial limits and polling guidance, which tells an agent exactly what this zero-arg call returns. It stops short of an explicit verb ('get'/'check'), opening with a noun phrase, but the resource is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_compute_status (per-job) or submit_*_job.

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?

'Check before submitting; an offline GPU cannot execute work' gives an explicit precondition that routes the agent to this tool ahead of the submit_* siblings. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative for cases where the agent already knows availability, but the usage context is clear.

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