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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it discloses the per-call cost ('$0.02/call, x402 (USDC on base)') and the tool's unofficial, non-endorsed status. However, it does not clarify what side effects (if any) occur despite readOnlyHint=false, nor does it explain external dataset behavior beyond the openWorldHint. The description does not contradict the annotations, so no flag, but it leaves room for more transparency.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical context (independence and pricing). It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every sentence contributes meaning. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool has 7 required parameters and no output schema. The input schema explains all parameters in detail, but the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a score, a ranked list, or a pricing breakdown). Given the complexity and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. However, the schema's rich parameter descriptions partially compensate, and the core purpose is clear.

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%, and each parameter has detailed meaning (e.g., railWeight 'Share of the final score assigned to metro proximity', maxTotalChargeUsd 'Maximum accepted total run charge'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema bears the full burden. Since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Score' and clearly identifies the resource: 'customer sites against official Metro stations and İSPARK capacity.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other location-based scoring (e.g., neighborhood-age-demand, solo-household-demand), showing a unique transit/parking access focus. The schema description reinforces this by mentioning 'Ranks customer-supplied Istanbul sites using straight-line proximity...'

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or preferred use cases. The only contextual hint is the mention of being 'Unofficial, independent Actor,' which is about trust, not usage. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'for other scoring needs, see...' guidance.

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