get_best_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior beyond the basic purpose, such as how ranking works, what 'Free' means, or any limitations like rate limits or idempotency. The safety profile of this tool is unclear.

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 two sentences: the first is informative and front-loaded, the second is a single word 'Free.' that adds minimal value. Overall concise and clear.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and input format. However, it lacks information about expected results, failure modes (e.g., no match), and behavioral context beyond what is stated.

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 100% schema coverage and only one parameter, the description adds value by providing a concrete example of the intent parameter ('e.g. get a crypto trading signal for BTC'), clarifying its natural language nature.

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 clearly states the tool finds the best matching affiliate opportunity based on natural language intent, ranked by relevance, trust, and commission. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_opportunities and get_opportunity_details by emphasizing ranking and natural language input.

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 implies usage when a natural language intent is given, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_opportunities or estimate_commission. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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