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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the title: it does not say whether the recommendation is deterministic, whether it draws on a catalog, or how many/which agents are suggested.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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?

Complexity is low (one required string, no nesting) and annotations cover safety, so little is needed. However, there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a 'recommendation' returns — an agent name, a config blob, or a ranked list — which is the main open question before calling.

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% and the single parameter 'goal' is fully documented with type and length bounds. The description's 'described workflow' merely echoes that schema text rather than adding format hints or examples of a good goal string.

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 names a specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('NoInfra hosted agent') plus the input it works from ('a described workflow'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like noinfra.catalog.get or noinfra.services.list, which an agent could plausibly reach for when looking for an agent.

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 only implied: the phrase 'for a described workflow' suggests this is the tool to call when the user has a goal but not a specific agent. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as the catalog or services list.

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