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

The description adds transparency about the output semantics by clarifying that 'organic_rank' is fact-only and the 'promotion' label is separate and disclosed. This goes beyond the annotations (read-only, non-destructive) by explaining how rankings are presented. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 verbose and contains redundancy, notably repeating the full description of return values ('Returns qualifying candidates...') twice. The structure is somewhat stream-of-consciousness and could be tightened. While not egregiously long, the repetition detracts from clarity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return structure (organic_rank, promotion, eliminated block) and explaining the candidate scope. However, it fails to mention the 'limit' parameter, which is a required gap. The overall context is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The description thoroughly explains three of the four parameters: 'need', 'constraints' (with examples), and 'candidates' (with two modes). However, it omits the 'limit' parameter entirely, leaving its purpose and default unspecified. This gap reduces completeness in parameter coverage.

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's purpose: comparing federation tenants based on their choice profiles to select one. It explicitly mentions the use case 'choose a tenant before buying', distinguishing it from catalog search or other tools. Despite a minor typo ('pick a need' instead of 'pick a tenant'), the overall intent is unambiguous.

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 provides usage context by explaining the two modes for the 'candidates' parameter (after a catalog search vs. discovery) and states the intended scenario ('before buying via the catalog/order path'). It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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