Gpu Quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, explaining that values are either live (read from the provider) or estimates derived from gpu-router's own job history, and that refresh=true is slower. It does not describe failure modes when a provider is unreachable, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the resource and its fields, then usage, then the refresh caveat. The inline return-shape example is somewhat redundant given a dedicated output schema, which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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?

Covers the resource semantics, the live-vs-estimate distinction, the usage context, and the refresh behavior; with an output schema present, return values need no further explanation. An agent has everything required to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by clarifying that refresh=true re-reads every live provider and is slower, which reinforces the schema wording. No further syntax or format detail is needed for a boolean toggle.

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 (free GPU quota per provider) with the exact fields returned (used, limit, unit, reset time, live vs estimate). It also distinguishes itself from gpu_route by noting routing already accounts for quota, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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 an explicit when-to-use ("plan long jobs or answer the user") and an implicit when-not ("routing already accounts for quota"), steering the agent away from redundant calls. It also flags the refresh=true cost tradeoff so the agent can choose the cheaper default path.

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