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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: result ordering rules, that the list is not sorted by group, that payment/client status/ownership do not influence order, that no scores or paid positions exist, and that free_text is accepted but not interpreted.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose first, then result shape, then ordering, then usage rule. It is dense but nearly every sentence adds operative detail; only minor length in the ordering recital costs it a point.

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 compensates by describing the return payload in detail: fit groups, reasons, limitations, unknowns, and ordering. Combined with the schema's nested situation definition, an agent has enough to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 only 50%, so the description carries extra weight, and it does clarify the key semantic that free_text 'is accepted but not interpreted: only the structured fields decide fit.' It also enumerates the situation dimensions (category, company size, country, requirements), though it does not cover the nested fields like unknown_policy or excluded_conditions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check a structured buyer situation ... against every published offering') and names the exact artifact returned ('each offering's fit or exclusion with reasons, limitations and unknowns'). It also names the sibling it is not (search_offerings), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Use when the situation maps to the schema categories; for plain-language needs use search_offerings.' This gives both the when-to-use condition and the alternative for the other case, leaving nothing to inference.

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