Estimate resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description meaningfully adds that the result is 'heuristic' and 'offline', signaling the output is an advisory estimate rather than an authoritative allocation. It does not, however, describe return shape, accuracy limits, or what happens when inputs are sparse.

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?

A single compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and subject come first. It is arguably under-specified for a 7-parameter tool, but on the conciseness axis itself it is efficient.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and 14% schema coverage, the description is far too thin: it neither explains the input parameters nor describes the returned estimate in any detail. It does nominally name the five output fields, but leaves the tool under-documented relative to its complexity.

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 only 14% (only 'profile' is documented), so the description carries the burden of explaining the other six parameters, and it does not. The fields it lists (cpus/mem/gpus/walltime/partition) are outputs, not inputs, so it adds no meaning to inputs like jobType, framework, epochs, modelParamsB, or datasetSizeGb.

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 names a clear action (suggest/estimate) and the resources it targets (cpus/mem/gpus/walltime/partition), so the core purpose is discernible. However, it frames the input as 'from a description' while the schema exposes only structured fields (jobType, framework, gpuCount, etc.) with no free-text description parameter, creating a mismatch. It also gives no differentiation from plausible siblings like ris_plan_run or ris_generate_sbatch_template.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer that this is a pre-submission planning step, with nothing pointing it away from overlapping siblings.

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