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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying it 'Moves no money and buys nothing.' It adds meaningful behavioral context about what the tool returns: ordered list, cost estimate, and verification state per step. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and output, followed by a necessary clarification about non-execution. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating what the return value contains: ordered paid endpoints, cost estimate, and verified-step details. It also clarifies side-effect behavior. Minor gaps remain around parameter meaning, but the overall tool behavior is sufficiently described for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'goal' and 'budget' at a high level. It does not explain the min_grade parameter at all, nor the budget_usd decimal-string format, nor how goal language or grade filtering affects the plan. This leaves a required and an optional parameter underspecified.

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 ('Turn') and resource ('a goal and a budget' into a route), and clearly defines the result as an ordered list of paid endpoints with cost estimate and verification details. It also explicitly distinguishes planning from executing by saying 'returns the plan for you to run yourself.' This is clear and differentiates from the sibling tools around capabilities and grades.

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 clear context: use this when you have a goal and budget and need an ordered plan of paid endpoints. It also implicitly excludes execution by stating 'Moves no money and buys nothing: it returns the plan for you to run yourself.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it versus siblings.

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