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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain semantics annotations cannot express: the meaning of each status value, including the non-obvious 'ai' state (busy with an AI workload until status_until, not for rent), which prevents mis-selecting an unavailable node.

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, with the catalog payload and its status vocabulary front-loaded before the filtering hint. Slightly run-on in the status parenthetical, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape — it does so by naming the per-node fields (status, hardware, price, software, engines). It stops short of describing ordering, pagination or result volume, which a catalog tool could reasonably address.

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% with examples for gpu, engine, software, currency and available_only, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the general framing that these filters target 'a job', not any per-parameter syntax or interaction 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+resource ('The EvaFarm node catalog') and enumerates what the listing carries: live status, hardware, hourly price, software and render engines. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list-adjacent tools like get_node or estimate_cost, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Filter to find a machine for a job' implies the browse-and-filter use case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_node (single node) or estimate_cost (pricing a job). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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