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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it performs no searches, it does not prove universal absence, and it costs $0.003 USD per call via x402. That covers side effects, epistemic limits, and cost. It omits what the tool actually returns and whether there are minimum input requirements (e.g., at least one check), leaving some gaps for a 5-param 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?

Three tightly written sentences: purpose first, then the usage trigger, then the limits and price. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 complex, deeply nested schema with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, limits, and cost but leaves the entire input contract unexplained. An agent can decide when to call it but not confidently how to fill checks, search_budget, or remaining_routes.

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% across five parameters, including a nested checks array and a search_budget object, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at 'scope already checked' and 'cost' but never explains goal, risk, the checks fields (method/result/authority/coverage/exhaustive), budget fields, or remaining_routes. An agent gets no guidance on how to populate the required check objects.

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 decision function: deciding whether another search or paid retrieval is worth its cost given scope already checked. It also explicitly disclaims what it is not ('performs no searches itself'), which helps an agent distinguish it from the retrieval siblings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against error_route, request_repair, or source_route.

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 gives a clear trigger ('after several search or source checks') and the decision context ('whether to continue or return a scoped not-found result'), which is actionable. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when this tool should not be called instead of another sibling.

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