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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns per-contract status, settlement index, DAP Standard classification and an id usable with get_compute_record — the return shape matters here because there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination/limit behavior or result ordering.

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 resource and scope, then the facets and return content. No filler or redundant framing; every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what comes back and how to chain into get_compute_record, and annotations cover the read-only profile. Remaining gap is operational detail — no mention of the default/max limit of 25/100 or whether a zero-result search is possible.

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%, so every parameter including enums for status and settlement is already documented in structured form. The description's facet list (venue, status, index publisher, jurisdiction, settlement, name) largely restates those fields and adds no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (search) plus the exact resource: compute derivative contracts (futures and options on GPU rental and compute price indices) recorded by the Compute Market Tracker. The facet list and the pointer to get_compute_record make it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like compute_list_prices and compute_market_events.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent this is the broad lookup tool — searchable by venue, status, index publisher, jurisdiction, settlement or name — and that get_compute_record is the drill-down for a returned id. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against the other siblings (compute_list_prices, compute_market_events, list_compute_coverage), leaving that boundary to be inferred.

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