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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world semantics, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the resolution strategy (slug lookup before free-text fallback) and that each recommendation carries an explicit rationale, which shapes how an agent should read the response.

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 tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the resolution strategy following as supporting detail. No filler, nothing repeated from the name or title.

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, so return values (recommendations plus rationales) don't need spelling out. What's missing is the semantics of 'limit' and the 'budget' enum and any note on behavior when no match is found — modest gaps for an otherwise simple read-only 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?

Schema coverage is only 33%: 'task' is documented in the schema and echoed in the description, but 'limit' (1-10) is never mentioned at all, and 'budget' is only labeled 'optional' without explaining whether the enum filters results or just ranks them. With low coverage the description needed to compensate and largely did not.

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-plus-resource ('returns the best-fitting tools' for a given job to be done) and gives two concrete example tasks. It's clearly distinct from siblings like search_tools or compare_tools, though it never names them explicitly to sharpen the distinction.

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 the usage context (I have a job to be done, optionally constrained by budget) and hints that slug input is preferred via 'resolves known task slugs first, then falls back to free-text search.' But it never states when to pick this over search_tools or find_alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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