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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false | true? Actually destructiveHint is false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: this is a paid resource with a specific x402 price of $0.002 USD per call)Skip? It also clarifies the ranking behavior. No contradiction with 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 crisp sentences: the first states the core action and inputs, the second gives intended domain and exclusions, the third discloses cost. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, domain, exclusions, and cost, and the schema covers structural constraints. However, for a nested-parameter ranking tool with no output schema, it omits expected output format, tie-breaking behavior, and how weights and constraints interact, so an agent may still face ambiguity when invoking it.

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 does name the key conceptual dimensions (price, reliability, latency, trust, quality, constraints, weights), which aligns with the schema fieldsUTE_MS-2. However, it does not explain default weight behavior, constraint enforcement semantics, or candidate field usage beyond names, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 verb ('Ranks') and resource ('caller-supplied candidates'), and names the exact signals used: price, reliability, latency, trust, quality, constraints, and weights. It also distinguishes this tool from legal/identity/sanctions/fraud/contractual/regulatory adjudication, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear intended use ('selection routing / execution risk') and explicit exclusions ('Do not use for legal, identity, sanctions, fraud, contractual, or regulatory adjudication'). It does not name alternative sibling tools directly, so it stops short of a full 5.

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