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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It candidly explains determinism, the possible return forms (single, multi_intent, partial allocation), the take-link existence condition, preservation of amount and payment pair, inclusion of trailing-30-day evidence, and the caveat that historical evidence does not currently influence ranking.

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 five sentences, and each sentence carries substantive information: purpose, ranking mechanics, output kinds, take-link conditions, and evidence behavior. It is front-loaded with the high-level purpose and contains 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?

For a complex route-planning tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the input intent, ranking inputs, return leg taxonomy, take-link conditions, and evidence caveats. It still omits exact output fields and an explicit read-only or non-executing statement, but the core invocation behavior is well covered.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds a ranking relationship to amount_usd and mentions payment-pair preservation, but it does not meaningfully clarify parameter formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with the verb 'Plan' and then specifies 'Ranks visible orderbook routes for a requested USDC amount', clearly identifying both the resource and the planning function. It distinguishes itself from sibling data-retrieval tools by emphasizing deterministic route ranking and allocation leg types.

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 provides a clear invocation context: use this tool when you need ranked best routes for a USDC amount, with details about route leg types and take-link behavior. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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