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

With annotations already covering read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, the description adds real behavioral detail: no key required, zero cost, a 404 OUT_OF_SCOPE response on no match, and do_not_build=true with named matched words on a match. It does not, however, explain latency, rate limits, or how the match confidence is derived.

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 cost/example/behavior information is front-loaded and compact, but the writing is fragmented and punctuation-heavy ("Never: Guess: it names the words it matched"), which slightly obscures the meaning of otherwise useful sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of return values, and it does describe both outcomes (match: do_not_build true, capabilities, next call; no match: 404 OUT_OF_SCOPE). Enough for an agent to call it correctly, though the match payload shape is only loosely described.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage sets the baseline at 3, and the description goes further by supplying a concrete example of the text value ("Set up intake, dispatch and invoicing for a plumbing business with 4 technicians"), which clarifies the expected level of detail beyond the schema's "in the user's 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 function: deciding whether the user's request corresponds to a flow JOBFLOW already supports, and returning a match/no-match verdict. It is distinguishable from siblings like flow_configure and intake_classify, though the phrasing is telegraphic rather than cleanly stated upfront.

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 first call" explicitly positions this as the entry point before any build/configure step, and it describes the next call once a match is found. It gives clear sequencing context but never states when not to use it or names an alternative tool.

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