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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that no booking is involved, it's paid (with free first 2 calls), and gives date format. However, it fails to mention authentication requirements (public_key, nonce, signature, timestamp are required in schema but not explained), error states, or what happens after listing. Adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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, concise and front-loaded with the main action. The marketing-like phrasing 'cheapest paid tool' adds some noise but is not excessive. Could be slightly tighter by removing 'independent of...' but overall efficient.

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?

Complex tool with 9 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema. Description lacks return format, definition of a directive, and explanation of required auth parameters. References to other tools help but do not compensate for missing fundamental context.

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%, yet description only explains since, until, and account parameters. It does not clarify required auth parameters (public_key, nonce, signature, timestamp) or other optional parameters like payment_header and limit. Insufficient given the complete absence of schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'List raw directives' with optional filters by account/date range. Distinguishes from siblings via 'no booking involved' and 'cheapest paid tool'. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

Provides context on when to use (cheapest, no booking) and mentions free tier. References other tools for allowances, but does not explicitly compare to siblings like submit_directive or validate_directive. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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