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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating the tool does not execute the capability and returns 'hard conflicts and weighted factors', which reveals its output nature. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the non-execution aspect and the kind of results, without contradicting any hint.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the core action and outputs, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every clause adds value: the target, the comparison, the result types, and the crucial non-execution constraint. It is optimally concise.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description bears the full burden of explaining the tool's behavior. It fails to elaborate on the 'constraints' parameter, the exact structure or interpretation of 'hard conflicts and weighted factors', or any error handling. For an evaluation tool with a nested object parameter, this is a significant gap that leaves an agent uncertain about how to properly use constraints or interpret results.

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 must compensate. It partially explains two parameters: 'a selected capability' maps to capability_id and 'a need' maps to query. However, the third parameter 'constraints' is never mentioned, and there is no information about formats or how constraints influence the evaluation. Since one of three parameters is entirely undocumented, the compensation is incomplete.

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 states a specific action ('Evaluate') on a resource ('a selected capability') against a 'need', and specifies the outputs ('hard conflicts and weighted factors'). It clearly distinguishes from execution tools by noting 'without executing the capability', but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like compare_capabilities or match_offer_to_need, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies a clear use case: evaluate one capability against a need without executing it. It even adds a condition ('without executing'), but does not mention when to prefer this over the sibling tools (e.g., compare_capabilities for multiple capabilities, match_offer_to_need for matching offers). No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so guidance is only implicit.

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