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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses quotas (10 calls/day/IP), per-call cost (1 credit/$0.02), the exclusion of A and any already-failing provider, and the payment/auth mechanics (x402, Bearer token, strict transport, trial credits). It does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, which is the main 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first two sentences, which are tight and clear. The trailing payment paragraph, however, is long and dense with URLs, token formats and tier edge cases, some of which duplicate the schema and dampen scannability.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and returns, and it does: it enumerates what the free preview versus the paid full call yields (candidate detail, ranked alternatives, confirmed incident, signed receipt). Payment and auth paths are fully specified, leaving only return shape and pagination undetailed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents from, task, tier and payment. The description adds some billing nuance (the tier/payment interaction and the strict x402 transport URL) but largely restates what the schema's field descriptions already cover.

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+resource: TensorFeed's signed ruling on the single best operational provider to fail over to, scoped to a task. It also positions itself relative to a sibling by noting it reuses the route-verdict fusion with the degraded provider excluded, so the agent can tell it apart from route_verdict or provider_reliability_verdict.

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 trigger condition is explicit: use it when Provider A is degraded and you need a failover target. It further routes by tier (free preview vs paid full) and explains what each tier returns. It never explicitly names when to prefer a sibling over this tool, so it stops short of 5.

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