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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses the returned fields (price, latency, terms, argument schema, selection rule), the ranked matching behavior, and the intended invocation context. There is no ambiguity about side effects or read-only status because the description frames it as a discovery/query operation.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output, the second lists the return payload, and the third gives the usage trigger. The most important guidance is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-optional-parameter discovery tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers invocation timing, output content, and the distinction from call(). Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides rich descriptions for both query and capability. The tool description adds the conceptual context 'discovery before call' but does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('find') and resource ('APIs on the Routavo network that can perform a capability'), and clearly distinguishes itself from call() by explaining it discovers providers before a provider id is known. It also enumerates exactly what is returned, so an agent can tell what the tool is for.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before call() when you do not already know a provider id,' which gives both a positive trigger and a clear contrast with the sibling call tool. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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