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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent semantics, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: nothing is purchased or executed, results are capped at three, and the agent should inspect endpoint inputs and fee legs. It stops short of describing ordering, empty-result behavior, or rail-specific caveats.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the safety caveat immediately after. The closing clause about 'review endpoint inputs and fee legs' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic about what is returned.

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 five-parameter planning tool with no output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly and sets expectations about the shape of results (endpoint inputs, fee legs). The unexplained asset parameter and unstated budget format keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It implicitly maps budget to 'spending ceiling', network to 'payment rail', and maxSteps to 'up to three', but says nothing about the asset parameter or the accepted formats (decimal string budget, enumerated networks), leaving real gaps.

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 ('suggest ... live catalog services') plus the scoping constraints (one payment rail, spending ceiling, up to three results). It implicitly separates itself from execution tools like start_purchase by declaring no payment occurs, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'No payment or task execution occurs' implies this is a pre-execution planning step, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_catalog, check_services, or prepare_mission_step, so the agent must infer the routing.

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