Earn with this machine's GPU

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'It runs nothing itself', then adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: root requirement, owner consent needed, and that listing depends on approval via the printed approve_url. That is genuinely additive safety context.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return values, then the safety condition. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 0-param, no-output-schema tool this covers everything an agent needs: what it does, that it is side-effect free, what it returns, and the consent/approval gate before the returned command is run.

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 the schema has no semantics to add; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is required to obtain the installer instructions.

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 and resource ('Explains how to add the GPU of the machine this agent runs on to AmpleRun') and specifies the return payload (installer command, steps, earnings links). It is unmistakably distinct from the rental/account siblings in the list.

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 a clear precondition chain: ask the machine's owner before running the installer because it needs root, and the owner must approve via approve_url or nothing is listed. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. what to use if the owner declines), but the context of use is unambiguous.

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