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 the key traits: it returns a ranked candidate set, it executes nothing and charges nothing, and it is non-destructive. It stops short of covering any rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only preview the essential safety profile is well communicated.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the non-execution guarantee before pivoting to the execution path, with every sentence carrying useful information. It is somewhat dense and the execution-path sentence is long, but nothing is redundant.

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 appropriately explains return contents (candidate set, score breakdown, latency, success rate, selected supplier, price). Combined with the routing instructions, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only per-parameter detail is absent, and the schema largely covers that.

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 75%, so most parameters (task, input, category, max_budget) are already documented. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it neither compensates for the small coverage gap nor extends definitional value; the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('returns the top-3 candidate suppliers APM would consider') and enumerates the exact payload (names, unit prices, score breakdown, latency, success rate, selected supplier, customer price). It implicitly contrasts itself with apm_quote by framing itself as a no-cost preview, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('free sample' preview) and when-not ('executes nothing and charges nothing'), plus the exact alternative path: get the quote_id from apm_quote, then POST /task and pay customer_price in USDC on Base. The routing to the right sibling and endpoint is spelled out.

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