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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that estimates are distinctly labelled and kept apart from measurements, that roles not run yield "no measurements" (no Fibre on mainnet), that correlation r is shown only once four hours overlap and is not causation, and that the response reports window coverage so early figures are provisional. These are genuine behavioral traits beyond anything the schema provides.

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?

The content is high-value but delivered as a single run-on sentence stuffed with nested parentheticals, making it hard to parse. It is front-loaded in intent but not in readable structure; the caveats and tool-routing could have been separated into distinct sentences.

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 still covers the measurement dimensions, the estimate-vs-measured distinction, data-availability caveats, correlation semantics and window coverage. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the result responsibly.

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% and the enums are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning on top: it enumerates the five roles, explains the window governs the median/95th/max span, and adds the non-obvious interaction that Fibre has no mainnet data, which helps an agent avoid a misleading role/network combination.

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 names a specific resource (measured hardware usage of the Celestia nodes Unity Nodes runs, CPU/RAM/page cache/data size/free disk/network) and explicitly frames the output as measured values beside Celestia's recommended hardware. It distinguishes itself from siblings by routing documentation questions to search/get_doc, offer questions to list_datacenter_offers, and Fibre estimates to size_fibre_node.

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?

It explicitly maps adjacent needs to the correct alternative tools: documentation requirements to search or get_doc ("Hardware requirements"), servers that meet them to list_datacenter_offers, and Fibre load estimates to size_fibre_node. The implicit trigger for this tool (wanting actual measured usage rather than requirements) is unambiguous given those exclusions.

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