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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses that results are paid APIs selected by cheapest/relevant criteria. It omits important operational context such as payment requirements, authentication, or how relevance and cost are determined, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and selection criteria.

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 simple one-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description gives enough to understand the basic purpose but is incomplete regarding sibling differentiation and payment context. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not help the agent decide between this tool and workmine_catalog or workmine_payment_instructions.

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 only parameter is undocumented in the schema itself. The description adds meaningful semantics by framing the task parameter as a natural-language task, which is more helpful than the bare 'task: string' schema, but it still lacks format examples or constraints.

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 ('Find') and resource ('WORKMINE paid API') with useful qualifiers ('cheapest relevant') tied to a natural-language task. It clearly conveys the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like workmine_catalog or workmine_payment_instructions.

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 implies usage when an agent has a natural-language task and wants a cheap relevant paid API, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. Sibling tools are not referenced to help disambiguate selection.

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