Accelerator spec sheet (with citations)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the response is provenance-backed with per-figure source URLs and verbatim quotes, and the tool resolves either canonical ids or common names. It does not discuss failure modes for unknown inputs, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, both front-loaded: purpose and the citation guarantee come first, then accepted inputs. The id enumeration is bulky but earns its space given the absence of an enum or parameter description in the schema.

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 must carry return-value expectations and does so at a high level (figures, source URLs, exact quotes). For a single-parameter, closed-domain lookup it is nearly self-sufficient; only the concrete response structure and error behavior for invalid ids remain unstated.

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 0% and there is no enum, so the description carries the full burden and does: it defines the accepted value domain (id or common name), gives worked examples (H100, MI300X, TPU v6e), and enumerates all ten canonical ids. That is more than the schema's bare minLength/maxLength constraints convey.

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 resource ('spec sheet for one accelerator') plus the differentiator that every figure carries an official source URL and exact quote. The singular scope ('one accelerator') cleanly separates it from compare_chips and list_chips in the sibling set.

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?

Usage is only implied through the singular scope; the description never explicitly says when to pick this over compare_chips or list_chips, nor states prerequisites such as when a common name vs. canonical id is acceptable. The enumerated ID list is helpful context but is input guidance rather than when-to-use guidance.

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