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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it is a paid resource with a concrete x402 price at the direct URL. It also clarifies this is for trust-unknown selection contexts, which is not implied by 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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, scope/exclusions, and cost with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, making the definition easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not state the output shape (e.g., sorted candidate list, whether scores are returned) or the behavior when constraints eliminate all candidates. The intent is clear, but with a nested input schema and paid execution, an agent would benefit from at least one sentence on output and constraint 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It names the factor groups (price, reliability, latency, trust, quality) and mentions weights/constraints, but does not explain how constraints filter or how weights combine, nor does it mention candidate fields like permission_ok or payment_supported. The schema field names are self-descriptive but not fully documented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Ranks caller-supplied candidates' using explicit signals, weights, and constraints. It clearly conveys the tool's domain (selection routing) and scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling routers with near-identical names.

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 states the intended context ('selection routing / trust unknown') and provides explicit negative guidance ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the exclusion list is a strong usage boundary.

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