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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the important non-obvious traits: it is free/included, it produces no verdict, and it discloses the extracted value/date and score signals. It stops short of describing error behavior for unrouteable claims or output shape specifics, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the no-verdict boundary is front-loaded via the leading 'Included' cost note. The opening word 'Included' is slightly opaque in isolation but earns its place by encoding the billing model up front.

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 one-parameter, read-only, non-verdict tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents, cost, and the sibling boundary well. Minor omissions are what happens on an unroutable claim and any pagination/format details, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'claim' as the assertion to route. The description adds nothing about the claim string (e.g. expected format, length limits, how ambiguity is handled), so baseline 3 applies.

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 (routes a claim to a series) and enumerates what the response contains: target series, extracted value/date, and scoring signals. It also explicitly separates itself from check_figure by declaring it returns no verdict, so an agent can pick between 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?

Names the alternative (check_figure) and the exact condition that selects it ('when you want one' — a verdict), plus a cost signal ('pay for') that guides usage under a paid tier. This is explicit routing guidance rather than implied usage.

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