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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait — data may be stale, and the response surfaces data_updated and stale — but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the fit verdicts are cached.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It reads as a run-on list of return fields, but every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the return fields (VRAM figures, evidence grade, fit verdicts, rental price) and the staleness signal. Only the relationship to the fit_check sibling is left unexplained.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal meaning, clarifying that quant drives the reported weight size, and does not touch context_tokens at all.

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 (查询) and resource (部署某模型需要的硬件配置) and enumerates what is returned: weight size, min/recommended VRAM, evidence level/source, per-GPU fit verdicts and rental price. This is clearly distinct from gpu_prices and search_models, though it overlaps with fit_check on the fits/tight/no verdict without explicitly differentiating itself.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as fit_check for a single combo or gpu_prices for pricing. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose, leaving the agent to infer routing among four siblings.

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