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

The description states the output fields (ts, idle_share, idle_offers, total_offers) but does not explicitly confirm a read-only operation, mention side effects, or address authentication/rate limits. The given output format partially compensates for missing annotations.

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 description is succinct, using two sentences to convey the purpose and output format without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 provides the output field names but lacks context on units, data interpretation, error handling, or response format. It also does not explain the meaning of each field beyond idle_share, leaving the tool's full behavior underspecified.

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 only parameter, 'hours', has no description beyond its name and default value. The description does not explain what 'hours' represents, how it relates to the output points, or the valid range. Schema coverage is 0%.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing an idle-capacity index over time, with explicit mention of the metric (share of interruptible GPU capacity) and the output fields. It distinguishes this from other tools by focusing on idle capacity history.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other history or status tools. The description does not mention any preconditions or specific scenarios where this is preferred.

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