Recommend a gateway

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the useful detail that rankings come from the capability map, but it does not say what the response contains (ordered list plus generated explanation), whether results are deterministic, or how ties are resolved. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the action verb comes first. It is slightly over-compressed given the missing return-value information, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With only two parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description should carry the burden of describing the return shape and how 'business' is used. It hints at an explanation but never states that an explanation is returned or that 'business' is ignored for ranking.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the example needs but adds nothing about ordering semantics of 'needs' (most important first) or whether 'business' influences ranking versus only the explanation text. Baseline 3 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 ('Rank gateways') plus the mechanism ('using the capability map'), and the parenthetical examples pin down the kind of use case. It is distinguishable from payments_list_providers and payments_get_capabilities because it produces a ranking rather than a listing, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 parenthetical examples ('subscriptions, international payments, Shopify, lowest integration effort') imply when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus payments_get_capabilities or payments_list_providers, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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