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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add non-obvious context. It usefully discloses that the tool operates on public data only and that use cases are illustrative, which helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the important privacy caveat second. No filler, repetition, or boilerplate.

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?

The description covers the central operational constraint (public-data-only scope) and the output schema handles return-value expectations. However, it leaves locale semantics and query phrasing largely underspecified, and it does not help an agent choose between this and closely related commercial siblings. 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. The phrase 'a prospective need' gives some meaning to the query parameter, but locale is never mentioned and its purpose must be inferred entirely from the enum values and default. The description adds only marginal parameter-level value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Match') and defines the resource scope: prospective need to public capabilities, illustrative use cases, and plans. It also differentiates itself by explicitly stating no access to customer projects or private data, though 'plans' is somewhat ambiguous and no sibling is named.

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 main sentence implies when to use this tool: when a prospective need should be matched to DigitalPublic's public offering. The privacy caveat establishes a clear exclusion boundary for customer-specific or private-data questions, but it does not explicitly route to alternatives like list_use_cases, get_offer, or compare_offers.

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