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

It discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: starts the bound Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, returns at most 1,000 source-linked rows, and does not modify government records. These are operationally significant details that the annotations do not provide.

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 and front-loaded with the primary routing purpose, followed by side effects and limits. The first sentence is dense but contains no filler. It earns a high score, though it could be slightly clearer with a structured list of task categories.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description omits essential invocation context: how to structure subject identifiers, what 'evidence' means, how receipts work, and what the returned packet looks like. It covers side effects well but not enough for correct use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters, the description needed to explain parameter meaning but only loosely maps to the task enum via phrases like 'U.S. property' and 'India company'. It gives no guidance on the required subject object, the evidence array, retentionDays, previousReceiptHash, transactionGate, or screenRestrictedParties.

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 identifies a routing gateway with a specific verb ('Use for routing') and enumerates the supported domains: U.S. property, India company/supplier, restricted-party, EPA, and China-facing intake. It also states the output concept ('one minimized, receipt-bound packet'), which distinguishes it from the sibling direct-evidence tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: routing supported evidence tasks into a packet. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like the sibling specialized tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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