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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: payment rails, credit redemption, the ranking formula's lack of a first-party term, the firstParty flag on every tool, gaps for uncovered needs, and the full return shape. This is rich disclosure for a hosted paid planning tool.

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 front-loaded with the critical payment and purpose information, then flows into pricing, credit mechanics, ranking transparency, and return fields. It is dense but every sentence carries actionable information; the single-paragraph format is long but not wasteful.

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?

Given a complex paid planning tool with an output schema, nested constraints, and open-world scope, the description covers payment, credit redemption, ranking methodology, gap handling, and depth tiers. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the depth enum: quick (one best tool), plan (steps + fallbacks), full (plan + params + compiled prompt). It does not elaborate on constraints beyond the schema, but the depth semantics are a meaningful addition.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Describe a job and get a call-ready plan: which tools... solve it end to end.' It clearly positions this as a planning tool that spans this catalog and external x402 sellers, distinguishing it from catalog.find/catalog.search and naming decide.execute as the downstream execution step.

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 explicitly notes wallet requirements, the $0.005/call fee, depth-based pricing, and that the fee credits toward running the plan with decide.execute. It also names concrete alternatives for payment and execution (MPP, npx agent402-mcp, prepaid credits key, any x402 client), giving the agent clear routing options.

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