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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what comes back (the matching document, its price in AUD, and what it does) and what the input should contain (who, what happened, what they want). It stops short of covering no-match behavior or match confidence.

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 sentence that front-loads the input and then the return payload, with no filler. Slightly dense due to the parenthetical, but every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return payload (document, AUD price, description), and with only one well-documented parameter the input side is covered. A minor gap remains around failure/no-match behavior for a matching tool.

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 the schema already documents the 10-500 character limit, so the baseline is 3. The description's '(who, what happened, what they want)' is a helpful structuring hint but largely restates the schema's 'situation in the person's own words'.

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 (takes a plain-English problem, returns the matching document) and resource (Claim Done document). An agent can tell this is a semantic matcher rather than a lookup. It never names or contrasts with siblings like get_document or list_services, which is the only missing piece.

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 by the input format: use this when you have a free-text problem description rather than a known document name. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer that get_document is for known IDs and list_services for browsing.

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