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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies that payment/commitment creation is not performed here, but never states whether routing itself has side effects (does it create a routing record?), what authorization is needed, or whether results are persisted. That leaves a meaningful gap for a call that sits adjacent to commitment creation.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, the excluded HTTP path, and the prerequisite/follow-up tools. The primary function is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does so at a high level ('ranked supplier matches') plus the next step for commitment lookup. It could say more about what ranking fields come back or how many matches are returned, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so budget, deadline, and capability are already documented with types and units (USDC, seconds from now). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond calling it a 'capability request', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Submits a capability request and returns ranked supplier matches') and explicitly draws the boundary that commitment creation with payment happens via the HTTP POST /route endpoint rather than this tool. An agent can distinguish it from create_commitment without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance ('Use list_capabilities first to discover available capabilities') and names the follow-up alternative ('For commitment lookup after routing, use get_commitment'). It also states the when-not case: commitment creation with payment is out of scope for this tool.

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