netintel_route_recommend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses live health-checking, the billing model ('Paid per call'), the no-charge failure case ('not charged when no candidate passes the live check'), and the crucial non-side-effect boundary that it does not invoke the endpoint. Missing only auth/permission or rate-limit context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scoped tightly, and the colon-list of returned artifacts is compact. Slightly dense, but every clause (providers, live check, pricing, non-execution) 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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must explain returns and behavior, and it does: price quote, input schema, reasons, plus the charging model and the non-execution caveat. Adequate for a one-parameter tool, though the routing-tool boundary remains thin.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter whose schema already includes an example ('geocode an address to latitude and longitude'). The description's 'for a job' adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for fully documented params is appropriate.

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 verb and resource with real scope detail: 'Get the 3 best x402 endpoints for a job, from three different providers, each health-checked live just now.' An agent immediately knows this is a recommendation/selection tool, not an executor. It does not, however, name the obviously related siblings netintel_route_search or netintel_route_vet to draw the line between them.

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?

Usage is implied (pick endpoints for a job) and one boundary is made explicit ('It does not call the endpoint for you'), which is useful. But there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the sibling route tools (route_search, route_vet), leaving the agent to infer which routing tool to pick.

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