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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that crossovers belong to a card and software stack rather than an architecture and that the answer reflects this, but it does not describe return format, units, or other operational traits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an important interpretive caveat. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

The description gives a useful conceptual picture of the return value: a crossover size and what it means above/below. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits concrete details such as units, how NF4 versus INT8 results are presented, and how multiple architectures are returned when arch is omitted.

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%, so the optional architecture enum is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'per architecture' framing and adds a caveat about interpretation, but does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the model-size crossover for NF4/INT8 per architecture,' and explains what the crossover means. It is clearly distinct from a generic energy-estimation tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 implies when the crossover is useful by explaining that below it quantization costs energy and above it saves. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus estimate_quantization_energy or other alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions.

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