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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool returns a result object with output, latency, price, and provenance, explains free vs. paid capabilities including a 10/day limit, and notes that paid capabilities debit the wallet. It also mentions that execution fails if the price exceeds max_price_cents, which is significant behavioral 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?

The description is four sentences and each sentence adds distinct value: execution purpose, usage context, return object, and pricing/free-tier guidance. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, though it could be slightly more concise by merging the pricing and balance-check advice.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return object's key fields, the prerequisite search step, the free/paid pricing model, and the max_price behavior. This gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional external documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by providing example slugs, clarifying that inputs should match the capability's required fields from search results, and explaining the default and failure behavior of max_price_cents. This goes beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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 executes a Strale capability by slug and returns the result, with specific examples of use cases (verification, validation, lookup, data extraction). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by instructing to call strale_search first, making its role as the execution tool unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to perform any verification, validation, lookup, or data extraction' and directs the agent to call strale_search first to find the right slug and input fields. It also advises checking strale_balance for high-value calls, providing clear when-to-use and contextual guidance for related tools.

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