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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool will be honest, not oversell, and recommend outside the portfolio if necessary. This is helpful for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 brief (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the note '[Templates DRAFT pending G1.]' is extraneous and reduces clarity for a production agent. Otherwise, each sentence contributes meaning.

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?

For a recommendation tool without an output schema, the description explains the tool's philosophy but does not cover return format, parameter dependencies, or error cases. It is minimally adequate given the tool's simplicity, but gaps remain.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description does not elaborate on the three parameters (need, town, context). It provides no hints on formatting or usage beyond the schema's example for 'need'. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 matches across the Travellers portfolio honestly, distinguishes itself by admitting when no property suits and naming an alternative category. The verb 'matching' and resource 'portfolio' are specific, and the tie to sibling tools like 'get_property' is apparent.

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 implies this tool is for property recommendations, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_property' or 'check_availability'. No 'when not to use' or alternative names are given; usage context is only implied.

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