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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but 'No model runs; nothing is charged' adds a genuinely non-obvious cost/behavior guarantee an agent needs before calling. It also discloses that the output is advisory (routes and prices) rather than executed work, though rate limits or latency are unaddressed.

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?

The input instruction is front-loaded and the cost disclaimer is short and unambiguous. The second sentence is a long enumerated list that is informative but reads as a run-on, costing a little scannability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly — structure and ordering of the free route, the shape of the paid option, and the clarifying questions. It also states the cost model, which is the main risk an agent would want resolved before 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by stressing the whole task must be sent 'in one sentence' with a concrete example, clarifying the expected granularity of the required `task` parameter. Mentioning the priced shortcut 'where one exists' also hints at how `budget` and `can_pay` shape the result, though `horizon` and `universe` are not referenced.

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 names the specific job (plan a task across Closelooknet) and enumerates exactly what comes back: recognised tickers/indices/topics, an ordered free route through pages and JSON twins, a priced paid shortcut where available, and narrowing questions. That payload enumeration distinguishes it from every get_*/search_* sibling, which return data rather than routes.

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 closing sentence gives an explicit trigger: 'Use before fetching pages one by one,' which tells the agent to call this ahead of the page-fetching siblings. It stops short of naming specific sibling tools or stating when this tool should be skipped (e.g. for a single known lookup).

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