search_benchmarks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the return type (list), and example fields (gpu_name, value, type), plus an example call with no arguments. This goes beyond a minimal statement, though it omits potential pagination or auth details.

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 description is concise: two sentences and an example call. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the endpoint and return fields, with no redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple 0-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, read-only list retrieval) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values beyond what fields are included. The description provides the endpoint, return structure, and example, making it complete for the tool's 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?

The input schema is empty and has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description reinforces this by showing an example call with no arguments. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary param details.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve all GPU benchmark records' with a specific verb and resource, and also provides the HTTP endpoint GET /benchmarks/. It is distinct from sibling tools like search_offers, search_templates, get_gpu_metrics, and get_gpu_trends, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage (when you need GPU benchmark records) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It names no sibling tools or conditions, so the guidance is only implicit, not explicit enough for a 4.

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