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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description discloses two things annotations cannot: that the call is unsigned/free (no signature or auth ceremony required) and that the response is limited to counts and dates, not decision payloads. It does not mention behavior when no decisions exist for a corridor, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the cost/caveat and the decision it supports. The opening clause is slightly convoluted ('against each route you could declare') but nothing is redundant.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema and no enums, the description partially compensates by describing the counts-and-dates return shape. It does not cover what an empty result means (no history vs. no savings), which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is a go/no-go judgement.

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 60% — source_asset, source_network and baseline_provider are documented in the schema, while destination_asset and destination_network are not. The description's 'this corridor' and 'each route you could declare' hint at the source/destination pairing and the route-filtering role of baseline_provider, but add no format or value guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 concrete resource — historical recorded decisions on a corridor, aggregated as counts and dates per declarable route — rather than restating the name. It is clear what the tool returns, though the verb is implicit ('How many... found a saving') rather than a crisp operation. It implicitly positions itself against the signed-evaluation siblings but never names them.

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?

'Use it to decide whether a signed evaluation is worth it' gives a clear when-to-use condition and contrasts with the paid/signed path. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternative tools (e.g. recta_prepare_signed_request), so routing relies on the agent inferring the counterpart from 'signed evaluation'.

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