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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the call costs 100 sats via L402, so the agent knows an authorization/payment step is involved. It says nothing about caching, rate limits, or whether a failed route still incurs the charge, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and with the price appended as a parenthetical rather than buried mid-sentence. Slightly compressed to the point of being terse, but there is no wasted text.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and a third of parameters undocumented mean the description must explain the return value (route, jump count, fuel, toll) and cost semantics. It covers neither, so an agent cannot predict what it gets back or when it is charged.

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 only 33%: optimize_for is described in the schema while origin_system and destination_system are bare strings, and the description adds nothing about expected system-name format or how the three optimization modes interact. For low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource ('routing optimizer') and scopes it to 'gate toll and fuel' across 'EVE Frontier star systems', which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like eve_network_node_gj_optimizer. It stops short of naming an alternative or clarifying how it differs from other EVE routing tools, and 'Smart' is filler.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. systems must be in EVE Frontier), and no note on what happens when origin equals destination. The only contextual cue is the price, which is not usage guidance.

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