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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by previewing the return payload: fit, what each match hinged on, systems mentioned, and what would be built new. It also discloses bilingual input support. It stops short of any note on result limits or ranking/cutoff behavior.

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 definition is essentially two sentences plus an inline example, front-loaded with the input expectation before the return shape. It is tight, though the return sentence is a dense list that could be marginally trimmed.

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 only two parameters, one enum, and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back — and it does so with specific output fields (fit, match basis, systems, new-build suggestions). Nothing material an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description contributes modestly by clarifying that 'description' is free-form prose with an example and by reiterating English/Turkish support that maps to the lang enum, but adds no guidance beyond that.

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 names a specific action (match a plain-words business/problem description) and a specific resource (Ninth Life Lab assistants that already run in shipped projects), plus a concrete example query. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, search_catalog, leaving the agent to infer which one to reach for.

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?

Usage is implied through the input format ('describe a business or a problem in plain words') and the worked example, which gives a decent sense of the expected input. However, there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions and no mention of when to prefer search_catalog or get_assistant instead.

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