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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the one outbound network request, that it will not fetch user-supplied URLs, exactly what is verified vs. not verified about listings, and that listings arrive labelled as operator claims. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 long, but every section earns its place: verification caveats, network behavior, and the not-required discovery note are all safety-relevant. The labeled sections improve scannability, though a bit of trimming could make it tighter.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical context: what is and isn't verified, the outbound-call behavior, no ranking, and how to bypass discovery entirely when an endpoint is already known. An agent has enough to use the tool correctly and avoid misuse.

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 covers all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining the filters are a conjunction, that capability means EVERY requested capability, and that maxPrice means 'at or under.' This pushes it above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Warda service registry for endpoints an agent holding a grant can pay.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all about building, checking, or recovering payment artifacts rather than discovering services.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: if you already know the endpoint, read the manifest directly and pay it without asking anyone. It also warns that discovery is never in the payment path and that the order of results is not a ranking, which prevents misreading.

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