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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that the tool can explicitly conclude irrelevance and by enumerating the scope of what it matches, which goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded with the core trigger and relevance decision, then provides concise positive and negative scope lists. It is slightly long due to the enumeration, but every sentence earns its place by shaping the agent's decision.

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 single-parameter tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it defines the trigger, the matching scope, the exclusions, and the possibility of a negative result. No critical operational information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'need' parameter is already documented as natural language. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the input is a monitoring/discovery need, which is appropriate but not extra value.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pairing ('match a monitoring need to Hiro Radar') and immediately frames the tool's decision role: deciding relevance. It lists concrete covered use cases and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the relevance-matching entry point rather than a describers or pricing tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a user describes a recurring business-monitoring or discovery need. It also gives a detailed negative list of domains where Hiro Radar should not be used and notes that the tool may return relevant=false, providing clear guidance on outcomes and exclusions.

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