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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It indicates the cost may be free during launch pricing, hinting at potential changes, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves room for uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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 concise, with two sentences, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The sentence about free pricing is secondary but relevant. It is efficient and not verbose, earning a high score.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks specifics about the output format, units of currency, or what 'basis' means exactly. The agent knows it returns cost and basis but cannot anticipate the structure. The completeness is sufficient for a simple tool but could be clearer.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the 'network' parameter, including format and omission behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. It correctly avoids redundancy.

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 clearly states what the tool returns: the settlement cost per network and the basis for that cost. It uses specific terms ('settlement costs', 'per network', 'basis') and is distinct from sibling tools which concern status, paid resource lookup, and integration snippets. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description implies when to use it (when you need settlement cost information) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternative tools like facilitator_status or find_paid_resource. The note about free pricing is contextual but not a usage criterion. No exclusions are mentioned.

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