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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context that it 'Returns no live chain data and has no side effects,' which clarifies the output is not actual chain data but a recommendation. This goes beyond the annotations and aligns with them; no contradiction.

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 two sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Free decision layer') and immediately answers the 'what does it do' question, then adds crucial behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 routing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description clearly communicates what outputs to expect (price, result fields, next request) and explicitly states it returns no live chain data. It lacks details on how to handle edge cases (e.g., unsupported goals) but given the sibling context and annotations, this is nearly complete.

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 100% for the single 'goal' parameter, and its description is adequately detailed. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as example goals or expected format. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional compensation needed.

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 ('map'), a clear resource ('agent goal to narrowest paid MACH Base capability'), and the exact outputs (price, result fields, next request). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch blockchain data, so an agent can immediately tell this is a router/decision tool, not a data fetcher.

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 when to use it: when an agent has a goal and needs to determine the narrowest paid MACH Base capability. It does not explicitly exclude situations where the agent already knows the specific sibling tool, but the context of 'Free decision layer' and 'exact next request' strongly suggests using it before calling a paid capability. A more explicit 'use this when you are unsure which base_* tool fits' would make it a 5.

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