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

Adds meaningful context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explicitly promises nothing is charged or executed, and it enumerates what the response contains (service, input schema, price ceiling, next call) despite there being no output schema. It stops short of noting whether results are cached or how ambiguous tasks are resolved.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the routing cue ('Start here') and the invocation rule, with zero filler. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, describing the return payload is a genuine strength, and the no-charge/no-execute guarantee covers the main risk. However, the substantial constraints surface is left unexplained, which is the main omission for a tool with a nested 13-field options object.

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 `task` parameter is well covered by the description's 'describe the desired result in ordinary language', but the nested `constraints` object contains roughly a dozen sub-properties (privacy, maxPrice, deadlineMs, allowedPaymentRails, requireVerification, etc.) that are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. With 50% coverage and a complex nested object, the description should have explained at least the purpose of constraints.

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 action and outcome: given a natural-language task, it identifies the exact service, input schema, price ceiling and next call. The title plus 'Start here' makes clear it is the discovery/quotation entry point rather than an executor, though it never names the sibling tools it hands off to.

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?

'Start here' gives explicit ordering, and 'Describe the desired result in ordinary language' tells the agent how to invoke it versus how not to (no service-name translation). It implies a follow-up call but does not name authorize_and_execute_selected_task or explain when to prefer find_best_service_for_task.

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