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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: unpaid calls return PAYMENT-REQUIRED accepts with accepted payment methods. However, it does not describe what happens on a successful paid call, what data is returned, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this is insufficient.

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 short but jumbled: it mixes pricing, endpoint, default body, and payment behavior in a single run-on sentence. It is front-loaded with the name and cost, but the lack of structure makes it harder to parse. It is not egregiously long, but the information is not organized effectively.

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 tool with 5 parameters, one nested object, no output schema, and 19 siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, return format, or when to use it, so an agent cannot make an informed decision to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The main description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it only mentions the default body {} which is already in the schema's body parameter default.

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 restates the name 'intel-macro' and gives payment details (cost, endpoint, default body) but never states what the tool does. There is no verb or resource indicating the actual function—it could be a generic macro intelligence endpoint, but that is left to inference from the name alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 19 sibling tools. It does not specify a use case, scenario, or conditions that would select intel_macro over intel_tvl, intel_verdict, etc.

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