list_my_nodes

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

No structured annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares the tool 'Read-only', states the required key scope, and adds a privacy detail ('never the renter'). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a scoped list call the essential behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense enumeration of returned fields is useful rather than repetitive. The single long sentence is less scannable than a structured list would be, and 'Read-only' sits as a trailing fragment, but no sentence 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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description must explain what comes back. It does so thoroughly: node states, GPU/VRAM, price details, verification, reputation, current rental privacy, and live metrics. An agent can form a correct expectation of the response without additional documentation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter schema receives a baseline of 4 regardless of description content.

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 ('list'), resource ('GPU nodes'), and ownership scope ('this account provides'), with a 'PROVIDER:' prefix that distinguishes it from renter-side siblings like list_rentals. An agent can identify this as the provider's node inventory call without touching the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it requires a key with the 'nodes' scope and is framed for providers. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus get_my_node (single node) or list_gpus (all GPUs), so it lacks the outgoing routing of a 5, but the provider framing makes the intended use clear.

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