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

'Free discovery only' adds a meaningful behavioral constraint, suggesting the operation is non-mutating and cost-free. With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it is thin on details like output format or side effects, though 'discovery' implies a read-only search.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. 'Free discovery only' is a useful extra constraint, though the word 'best' is somewhat vague and not strictly necessary.

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 is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description still omits essential context: no parameter semantics, no example of a natural-language query, and no guidance on what the agent should do with the result. It is minimally viable but leaves several important aspects to inference.

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%, and the description does not explain 'query' or 'limit' beyond what their names suggest. The natural-language framing hints at the query parameter but never explicitly states what format the query should take or how limit affects results.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find the best Qorevia x402 tool for a natural-language need.' It conveys that this is a discovery/recommendation tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like qorevia_catalog or qorevia_route.

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 'for a natural-language need' implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to map a user request to a suitable Qorevia x402 tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over qorevia_catalog, qorevia_route, or qorevia_tool_info, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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