spot_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the HTTP method/path, that results come from a cache unless fresh=true, and that best.usd_per_hr is an upstream provider price rather than a SpotGPU fee. It stops short of describing pagination, error behavior, or response freshness semantics.

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 purpose and the key return field before the Args block, and every sentence carries information. The Args entries partly restate schema defaults, which is mild redundancy but aids readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still flags the one field agents will care about (best.usd_per_hr). Combined with full parameter coverage and the read-only GET nature of the call, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every one of the four parameters is documented with format and defaults (gpu example values, qty >= 1, comma-separated markets list, fresh bypassing cache). This fully covers the gaps in the structured schema.

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 ('Get SpotGPU spot rental prices') and scopes the result ('best + alts') for a GPU type. It even names the underlying endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves.

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 implied by the name and the pricing context ('Credits are for API calls, not GPU rental'), which usefully clarifies the cost model. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no siblings to route against, so the description leaves selection entirely to inference.

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