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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well on two fronts: it states the cost model ("$0.02 USD per call via x402") and characterizes the return ("ranked candidate routes and bounded evidence"). It stops short of covering rate limits, auth requirements, or what "bounded evidence" concretely means.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before usage rules and price. Nothing is wasted, though "bounded evidence" is unexplained jargon that slightly dilutes the efficiency of the return-value sentence.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what comes back and how the remaining inputs shape results. Purpose, routing guidance and pricing are covered, but return semantics and three parameters are left to the schema alone.

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 description must compensate. It names and characterizes the three primary inputs ("a goal and optional publisher domain or start URL") but says nothing about max_candidates, require_official, or preferred_formats, and adds no format or constraint detail for goal (500-char cap) or domain. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

States a specific verb ("Find") and resource ("likely authoritative or machine-readable sources") with a clear triggering condition ("when you know what information you need but not where to retrieve it"). It is plainly distinct from the siblings error_route, request_repair and stop_search, though it never names them to reinforce the boundary.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("Use it before blind searching") and when not to ("Do not use it when you already have the correct source or only need reasoning over supplied context"). Both a positive trigger and a negative exclusion are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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