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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects, safety, and behavior. It only states that a call plan is returned, which implies a read-only computation, but it does not explicitly say whether it is safe, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. However, it is too sparse given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, so it does not earn a higher score.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must be comprehensive to enable correct invocation. It fails to explain what a 'machine-ready call plan' is, how matching works, what the parameters do, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively, especially with three sibling tools present.

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 must compensate by explaining what 'query' and 'input' mean. It does not mention either parameter, nor does it provide any context about how they are used. With no parameter information in the description, an agent cannot understand what to pass, making this dimension critically weak.

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 states a clear purpose: return a machine-ready call plan for the best matching Qorevia x402 endpoint. It identifies a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('call plan'), and implies a matching function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like qorevia_find, which might also involve matching, so it is not perfectly distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would steer an agent to a sibling like qorevia_catalog or qorevia_find. The 'best matching' phrase hints at a selection scenario, but it is vague and leaves usage entirely to inference.

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