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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds a real trust guarantee beyond them: results are grounded strictly in the published catalog and the tool "does not invent services," which tells the agent output may legitimately be empty rather than fabricated.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint following it. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return format and safety need no explanation. However, for a matching tool it omits what happens when nothing in the catalog fits and how to phrase the need for best results, leaving a modest gap.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines `need` as 1–500 characters. The description only adds that the need should be "short" and that it is a need rather than a query string; it does not clarify whether keywords or a full natural-language sentence works better.

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 ("Matches a short need to offerings") plus a scope qualifier ("published catalog only"). It is clearly distinct from list_offerings, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Implies the use case (caller has a free-text need and wants a catalog match) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives such as list_offerings. The agent must infer that this is the semantic-search entry point versus browsing the catalog.

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