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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the marketplace itself picks the agent and that you learn the charge, which hints at non-determinism and a pricing return, but it does not explicitly warn that repeated calls may select different agents or describe how the payload is forwarded.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious calling convention. No filler and nothing buried.

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, three parameters, nested objects, and an open-world call, the description should carry more of the return-value and failure burden. It only gestures at the return ('learn what it charges'), leaving the response shape and what happens when no agent satisfies the policy unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the empty-object convention for payload. The description only restates the payload requirement, adding no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 - routing a capability request to a marketplace-chosen agent and returning pricing. It is clearly distinct from the getter/search siblings by naming the marketplace's selection behavior, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with vtessera_search_offers, which is the natural browsing alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to satisfy a capability request. The only concrete guidance is about the payload being required and passing an empty object for argument-less capabilities. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_offers/get_offer first, nor any prerequisite or failure guidance.

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