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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the call costs $0.005 via x402 and refusals produce deterministic evidence. It does not, however, explain what a successful admission returns or whether any downstream side effect occurs.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and constraints, then appends the essential cost detail. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundant filler.

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?

The description gives enough to understand the tool's selection constraints and cost, but the absence of an output schema leaves the admission/refusal return contract unexplained. It also does not clarify what 'admit' produces operationally or how the refusal evidence should be consumed by the agent.

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 50%, but the description maps all four parameters to their constraint roles: task relevance, price, Tempo rail, and freshness. It adds meaning beyond the bare enum and field names, yet it does not elaborate on the freshness object structure or how constraints interact.

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 states a specific verb ('Admit'), a specific resource ('live MPP public catalog'), and the constraints used (task relevance, price, Tempo rail, freshness). It conveys the gating nature clearly, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like mpp_route or oblique_gateway.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many routing and gateway siblings. The description implies a catalog-admission context, but it never states when an agent should select this over mpp_route, oblique_gateway, or route_task.

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