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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral context: it is free, returns ranked providers/alternatives/schema/cost/fee quote, and does not spend funds or resell services. All statements align with the annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the primary use ('Use this first'), list coverage areas, then state outputs and constraints. No redundant 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?

For a read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes return contents and safety, and the schema is self-explanatory for nested structure. However, the 0% parameter coverage and lack of explicit guidance on constructing multi-requirement requests leave an agent to infer key semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It gives example capability categories (search, blockchain, finance, etc.) that map to requirements.capability, but it never explains how to structure requirements or what preference, max_unit_price_usd, max_total_upstream_usd, quantity, or requests do.

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 identifies a concrete action ('find paid APIs' / quote) and names the domains it covers, separating itself from the execute/finalize/route siblings by stating it returns a quote and does not spend funds. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

'Use this first' and 'Does not spend funds or resell provider services' clearly define this as the discovery/quoting stage preceding execution. It does not explicitly name execute/finalize/route as the alternatives, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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