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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: query results are ranked by closeness, conventions extend a base trunk with field-of-work dimensions, and the resource is also public at GET /conventions. No pagination or return-size caveats are given, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Reasonably sized and front-loaded with the resource definition, but the sentences are dense and the parenthetical field lists ('name, description, need, can, contact', 'service, location, rate...') add bulk for marginal selection value.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, the pre-post_listing step, and an alternate public endpoint. The return shape is not described, but with no output schema that omission is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the query param with an example ('dog walking') and clarifies ordering semantics, but adds no syntax or token-handling detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (list registered conventions) and distinguishes the plural list from the singular sibling get_convention by noting it feeds post_listing. The phrasing ('the headers listings fill in', 'extends the trunk') is jargon-heavy and slows comprehension, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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?

Explicitly says 'Pick one before post_listing', giving a clear when-to-use condition, and indicates the query param returns closest matches first. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions among the many convention siblings.

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