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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly discloses that the tool is FREE, does not charge, only ranks candidates rather than executing, and uses tier-specific behavior (economy=cheapest, verified=reliability score). This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond what the schema alone offers.

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?

Three dense sentences with no wasted words. The most important behavioral fact 'FREE' is front-loaded, followed by sibling differentiators and the critical instruction to use route_and_call for execution.

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?

Given the simple 4-parameter schema with full descriptions and no output schema, the description is complete for selection and invocation. It covers what the tool does, when to prefer it over alternatives, what tier values mean, that it costs nothing, and what to use next for execution.

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 description adds value by explaining the enum semantics for tier ('economy' = cheapest, 'verified' = reliability-scored), which goes beyond the schema's plain labels. Other parameters are already well documented by the 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: 'Rank Bazaar APIs for a natural-language task', and adds the key qualifier 'without paying'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from search_bazaar and list_discovered_apis, so an agent can tell siblings apart immediately.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer over search_bazaar when you need ranked candidates' and 'Prefer over list_discovered_apis when matching a task, not dumping the cache.' It also names route_and_call as the next execution step and warns 'do not use this to pay', leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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