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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't repeat safety traits. It adds valuable context by explaining the recommendation is based on live relay telemetry and includes expected inclusion probability, which goes beyond the annotations in describing what the tool actually returns.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return payload, then a specific usage pairing. Every sentence contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, return value, and recommended workflow. It equips the agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool without requiring further clarification.

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?

The schema already describes the 'borrower' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds the key semantic detail that omitting the borrower yields a recommendation for current market conditions, which the schema does not state. This clarifies the optional parameter's behavior more fully.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'actionable bundle submission recommendation', and details the exact return values (builder, inclusion probability, reason). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it for deciding WHERE to submit a bundle, especially referencing pairing with monitor_crossing_candidates.

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?

Explicitly instructs to pair with monitor_crossing_candidates: 'identify a hot candidate, then call this to decide WHERE to submit your bundle'. Also clarifies the two invocation modes (specific borrower vs. current market conditions), giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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