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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds useful traits—caveat that relevance is not availability/permission and that private notes are used only when consented. However, it does not state whether the tool has side effects, what auth it requires, or how it behaves for invalid/unavailable agents.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, caveat, and alternative routing. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 core purpose and parameter scope are clear, but since_seq is undocumented, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe the shape of the ranked result or whether private notes affect consent handling. These are clear gaps for a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool.

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 schema already describes three of four parameters (75% coverage), and the tool description adds only general context about evidence sources rather than parameter-specific semantics. since_seq remains unexplained in both the schema and description, but the high schema coverage keeps this at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rank saved agents for an objective using profile evidence...'. It clearly separates this from action-oriented siblings by stating 'Relevance is not availability or permission.'

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?

It gives explicit alternative routing: 'Use existing contact_room_start or request_create only within user scope.' It also warns against treating recommendations as availability/permission checks. The phrasing 'only within user scope' is slightly ambiguous, so not a perfect 5.

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