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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose read-only operation, absence of purchase/routing/payment/downstream execution, and a NO_RECOMMENDATION fallback for insufficient evidence. It omits authentication requirements, rate limits, latency, and what a successful response contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only constraint and behavioral limits. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter query tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what each capability returns or how to interpret NO_RECOMMENDATION, leaving essential call-time context missing.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'capability' parameter, and the description never mentions or explains it. The enum values are the only parameter guidance, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('query' + 'OMEGA evidence') and rules out transaction/routing behavior, which distinguishes it from route_service. However, 'OMEGA evidence' is not defined, and the siblings are not named, so the agent must infer the tool's actual domain from the capability enum.

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 negative guidance ('No purchase, routing, payment, or downstream execution') but does not state when the tool should be used instead of market_capabilities or route_service. No prerequisites or alternative-selection conditions are provided.

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