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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses read-only operation, the $0.01/call x402 cost, the 3-query/day free tier, and the free-vs-paid top-1/top-3 result difference. It omits failure modes and exact handoff/evidence behavior, but safety and pricing are covered.

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?

The description is just two sentences, both contributing useful information (scope + payment/result tiers). However, the first sentence is dense and jargon-heavy, making it harder to parse quickly.

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 tool has nested parameters, zero schema property descriptions, and no output schema, yet the description never defines the output shape, the meaning of 'qualified handoff sessions', or how paid mode is selected. An agent gets enough to know what the tool does, but not enough to predict the exact call/response contract.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters; it only loosely hints that `task` can be a protocol, market-activity, or paid-service discovery query. It gives no semantics for `constraints` (chain, category, max_price) or `seller_delivery_receipt`, so an agent cannot confidently construct these fields.

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 names a concrete action — 'Route ... tasks' — and points at a specific resource ('Agent Economy read-only MCP data'), while also stating free/paid result behavior. It lacks sibling differentiation and leaves jargon ('qualified handoff sessions') unexplained, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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 conveys when to use the tool: for protocol, market-activity, and paid-service discovery tasks, with a free-tier caveat. It does not explicitly contrast route_task with sibling routing tools like agentcore_route or mpp_route, nor state when not to use it.

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