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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: it declares the tool is a port of a public calculator calibrated to Mocha, that it is not live network data, and that november_preview is an UNCONFIRMED estimate. It does not mention auth requirements, determinism, or rate limits, but for a pure calculator that gap is minor.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before provenance, caveat and output note. The estimate disclaimer and Mocha calibration earn their place, though the parenthetical detail makes it denser than strictly needed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly names the returned quantities (storage rows, disk, sustained ingress, monthly inbound traffic, RAM, uplink port) and the Pulse link. Combined with the estimate caveat, an agent has what it needs; only auth/behavioral specifics are absent, which is acceptable for a stateless calculator.

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 four parameters including the throughput enum and the 4 h retention default. The description adds only the framing that sizing keys off voting-power share and the uplink port, which is marginal beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (size) and resource (extra hardware a Celestia Fibre node needs on top of a validator) plus the exact input basis (the validator's share of voting power). It also enumerates the concrete outputs, which separates it cleanly from siblings like get_celestia_hardware_usage or get_fibre_validator.

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 line 'A sizing calculator, not live network data' implicitly routes the agent away from the live-data siblings, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement. Usage is inferable but left to the reader.

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