check_deployment_fit

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by mentioning a $0.01 USDC cost and 'bounded' evidence, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not disclose rate limits or authentication requirements, but the cost disclosure is significant.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, making it highly concise. The cost prefix is somewhat distracting, but the overall structure is compact and front-loads a key operational detail.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be complete. The output schema may cover return values, but missing usage guidance and parameter semantics leave an agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly and confidently.

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 for undocumented parameters, but it does not. 'Model/configuration' vaguely maps to model, hardware_system, and related fields, yet parameters like concurrency, quantization, engine, and max_evidence are left entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('check model/configuration fit') against 'bounded StackBench capacity evidence,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_evidence or recommend_deployment. However, the '$0.01 USDC on Base mainnet' prefix and the jargon-heavy 'bounded StackBench capacity evidence' slightly obscure the core purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as predict_performance or generate_launch_config. The description implies a validation/checking use case but never states conditions or exclusions.

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