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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results reflect live availability, price is expressed in cents per minute, and configurations are scoped to dedicated endpoints. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, but adds real value over the annotation.

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 resource and its returned fields, followed by the optional filter behavior. The trailing 'Together: GET /hardware' endpoint reference is minor filler but harmless.

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, yet the description carries the return-value burden by naming the fields returned (GPU type/count/memory, price in cents per minute). With a single fully documented optional parameter and readOnly annotation, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 model parameter is fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description restates the parameter's effect and adds the nuance that results carry live availability, but contributes little syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (hardware configurations for dedicated endpoints), and even enumerates what the records contain (GPU type/count/memory, price in cents per minute). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like together_list_models and together_list_endpoints.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to pass the model parameter: to restrict to compatible configurations with live availability. It gives clear usage context but does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use this one.

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