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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully expose data provenance (NVML direct vs borrowed/estimated) and that gaps are surfaced, but says nothing about the response structure, granularity, or size, leaving the agent guessing at what the list actually looks like.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the content and followed by usage triggers. The trailing 'honestly' is mild filler but doesn't undermine the structure.

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?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description does the essential job of explaining what the return conceptually contains (measured vs estimated vs gaps). A sentence on the output shape would close the remaining gap.

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, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 ("List") and a precisely scoped resource: coverage across GPU architecture × precision × size range, broken into measured, borrowed/estimated, and gaps. This is clearly separable from the sibling tools that produce estimates or search raw measurements.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers: before trusting an estimate at the edges of coverage, and to answer 'is there data for my GPU?'. It implies the contrast with estimate_quantization_energy but never names alternatives or states explicit exclusions.

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